This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As between the parties' conflicting claims, we find that the CA correctly upheld the Spouses Arciaga's acquisition of the subject parcel from the BOL over Loreto's nebulous claim on the same. For one, the bare assertion of Loreto and his witnesses that he had been in the open, adverse and continuous possession of the property for over thirty years (30) is hardly the well-nigh incontrovertible evidence required for acquisition of disposable lands of the public domain. [60] Because forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same, [61] Loreto's bare denial of his signature on the 16 May 1966 document prepared by Honorio cannot, for another, expediently impugn the probative value thereof. Quite significantly, said document lends credence to the Spouses Arciaga's claim that Loreto's occupancy of the land in litigation was upon their tolerance and that of their predecessor-in-interest. Since possession may be exercised in one's own name or in that of another and it is not necessary for the owner or holder of the thing to personally exercise his possessory rights [62] Loreto's tolerated occupancy of the land cannot be said to have ousted the possession claimed by the Spouses Arciaga. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Office of the Ombudsman and the appellate court invariably found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct. The Court affirms this finding following the salutary rule that factual findings of administrative bodies are accorded not only respect but even finality by the Court. In administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only substantial. The gauge of substantial evidence is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that petitioner is guilty of misconduct, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. Here, there is substantial evidence to support the Ombudsman's finding, as sustained by the CA, that petitioner is guilty of the offense charged against him. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and shall not be disturbed by the Court.[17] It is not the task of this Court to weigh once more the evidence submitted before administrative bodies and to substitute its own judgment for that of the latter.[18] | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Having brought this petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner must be aware that only questions of law may be considered for resolution.[29] It is a well-settled principle that this Court is not a trier of facts, and that respect is generally accorded to the determinations made by administrative bodies,[30] especially where, as in this case, the findings and conclusions of the administrative and executive offices concerned (the LRA, the DOJ and the OP) and those of the CA are similar. | |||||