This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The RTC apparently reckoned respondents' period of supposed possession to be "more than thirty years" from the fact that "their predecessors in interest are the adjoining owners of the subject parcel of land." Yet, its decision nowhere indicated what acts respondents had performed showing their possession of the property "continuously, openly, publicly and adversely" in that length of time. The decision mentioned only that they had paid realty taxes and had caused the survey of the property to be made. That, to us, was not enough to justify the foregoing findings, because, firstly, the payment of realty taxes did not conclusively prove the payor's ownership of the land the taxes were paid for,[25] the tax declarations and payments being mere indicia of a claim of ownership;[26] and, secondly, the causing of surveys of the property involved was not itself an of continuous, open, public and adverse possession. | |||||