This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-02-20 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| A reading of the CA's July 31, 2008 Decision shows that it affirmed the grant of the respondent's application given its supposed compliance with Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529. It ruled that based on the evidence submitted, the respondent is not qualified to register the subject property in its name under Section 14 (1) as the possession and occupation of its predecessors-in-interest commenced after June 12, 1945. Nonetheless, as the CA ruled, the respondent acquired title to the subject property by prescription as its predecessors-in-interest had possessed the subject property for more than thirty (30) years. Citing Buenaventura v. Republic of the Philippines,[19] the CA held that even if possession commenced after June 12, 1945, registration is still possible under Section 14 (2) and possession in the concept of an owner effectively converts an alienable and disposable public land into private property. | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner presented tax declarations and the deeds of confirmation of the 1946 sale from the original owner (Lucio Olan) to Anatalio Aranda and the 1965 donation made by the latter in favor of petitioner. But as found by the CA, the history of the land shows that it was declared for taxation purposes for the first time only in 1981. On the other hand, the Certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Malvar stated that petitioner, who supposedly received the property from his father in 1965, had been paying the corresponding taxes for said land "for more than five consecutive years including the current year [1999]," or beginning 1994 only or just three years before the filing of the application for original registration. While, as a rule, tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession - they constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.[21] | |||||
|
2011-03-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Buenaventura v. Republic,[21] we ruled that said Certification is sufficient to establish the true nature or character of the subject property as public and alienable land. We similarly ruled in Republic v. Court of Appeals[22] and intoned therein that the certification enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence. | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A review of subsequent and recent rulings by this Court shows that the pronouncement in Herbieto has been applied to Buenaventura v. Republic,[17] Republic v. Diloy,[18] Ponciano, Jr. v. Laguna Lake Development Authority,[19] and Preciosa v. Pascual.[20] This Court's ruling in Naguit, on the other hand, has been applied to Republic v. Bibonia.[21] | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Often cited but rarely heeded is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the Court does not normally undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court. However, there are several recognized exceptions[25] in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court. Two of these exceptions find application in the present case, to wit: (1) when the findings of fact of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court;[26] and (2) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In Connection with your request for verification of status of above noted lots dated October 6, 1999 please be informed that the subject area falls within Alienable and Disposable Proj. No. 30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas per L.C. Map 582 cert. December 25, 1925.[38] It is therefore undisputed that the subject lots have been declared as alienable and disposable by a positive government act.[39] The certification itself is sufficient to establish the true nature and character of the subject properties. Similarly, it enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.[40] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Generally, we are bound by the factual findings of the CA.[29] However, the recognized exceptions thereto obtain in this instance.[30] | |||||