This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-11-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the applicant must present proof of specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law than factual evidence of possession.[23] Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would actually exercise over his own property.[24] | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is true that petitioner presented tax declarations of the subject lot, as well as tax receipts evidencing payment thereof. The Court notes, however, that the tax declaration was effective only in 1998, and that the tax receipts were dated 1997 and 1998. She failed to adduce in evidence any tax declaration over the property under the name of her parents and that the realty taxes for the property had been paid prior to 1998. At best, she offered a copy of a tax declaration which began in 1985 in the name of her co-heirs. While a tax declaration by itself is not adequate to prove ownership, it may serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession.[31] The voluntary declaration of a piece of real property for taxation purposes not only manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the state and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[32] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| 12, 1945 or earlier, and second, the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.[24] To prove its length of possession, FATCO offered the testimonies of Antonio Casugay, its division manager, Emilio Paz, owner of the adjacent lot, and of Ernesto Adman and Cifirino Bucago, its predecessors-in-interest. It also presented deeds of conveyance and several tax | |||||
|
2007-08-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Again, even assuming arguendo that the lots were indeed sold to him by Genoveva, Domingo failed to adduce proof that Genoveva, from whom he seeks to tack his possession, acquired registrable title over them on June 12, 1945 or earlier. Under the same assumption, Domingo's claim that he has been in actual, continuous, adverse and open possession of the lots in the concept of an owner since 1948 is a conclusion of law which must be substantiated with proof of specific acts of ownership and factual evidence of possession.[35] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioner proffered in evidence the TDs showing payment of realty taxes by the Spouses Andres and Trinidad from 1938 which was subsequently continued by Venustiano and Arsenia. Although as a rule, tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property and serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession.[37] These tax declarations bolster the petitioner's claim that its predecessors-in-interest possessed and occupied the lot in question since 1938. | |||||