This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the setting of the initial hearing outside the 90-day period set forth under Section 23 of P.D. 1529, the Court agrees with the CA in ruling that the setting of the initial hearing is the duty of the land registration court and not the applicant. Citing Republic v. Manna Properties, Inc.,[5] this Court held in Republic v. San Lorenzo Development Corporation[6] that: The duty and the power to set the hearing date lie with the land registration court. After an applicant has filed his application, the law requires the issuance of a court order setting the initial hearing date. The notice of initial hearing is a court document. The notice of initial hearing is signed by the judge and copy of the notice is mailed by the clerk of court to the LRA [Land Registration Authority]. This involves a process to which the party-applicant absolutely has no participation. x x x | |||||
|
2008-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As the law now stands, a mere showing of possession for thirty years or more is not sufficient. It must be shown, too, that possession and occupation had started on 12 June 1945 or earlier.[46] | |||||
|
2008-06-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The date "12 June 1945" under the aforequoted provision is a reiteration of Section 4[23] of P.D. No. 1073,[24] which, in turn, amended Section 48 (b)[25] of the Public Land Act.[26] The reckoning date under the Public Land Act, as amended, for the acquisition of ownership of public lands is likewise 12 June 1945 or earlier, and evidence of possession from that date or earlier is essential for a grant of an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.[27] | |||||