This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-01-26 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Seventh, the issue of lack of technical description and tie-lines is manifestly a dilatory excuse to muddle the issue of possession of the subject lots occupied by petitioner's members. Verily, petitioner admits that its members do not own the lot where they have erected their houses they posit the USA as its owner. But as aptly shown and proven by respondent BCDA, Fort Bonifacio is no longer owned by the USA but by the Republic of the Philippines, which has conveyed, ceded, and passed on its ownership, use, and administration to BCDA pursuant to RA 7227. As such, petitioner's members had taken possession of the government land by illegal means without any legal basis and hence, cannot claim adverse possession of public land. In a plethora of cases, we have reiterated the doctrine that registered property could not be acquired through adverse possession. Thus, in Calimpong v. Heirs of Filomena Gumela, we reiterated that a registered property from the time its registration has become final could not be acquired by adverse possession.[30] | |||||
|
2000-02-22 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| On December 29, 1994, 2nd Asst. Prosecutor Bautista issued a Memorandum[25] for Rizal Provincial Prosecutor Mauro Castro, recommending that petitioner be indicted for the crime of falsification of private document on two (2) counts. Two (2) separate informations which were accordingly filed against petitioner were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 163751 and 163752 and subsequently raffled to Branch 61 of the Metropolitan Trial Court.[26] On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to both charges. | |||||