This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-08-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's heavy reliance on the tax declarations in his name and in the names of his predecessors-in-interest is unavailing. We hold that while it is true that tax declarations and tax receipts are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, the same must be accompanied by possession for a period sufficient for acquisitive prescription to set in. By themselves, tax declarations and tax receipts do not conclusively prove ownership.[40] | |||||
|
2009-07-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The resolution of the first issue is factual in nature and calls for a review of the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. As a general rule, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[35] Only errors of law are reviewable by the Supreme Court on petitions for review.[36] However, this rule admits of several exceptions, wherein We disregarded the aforesaid tenet and proceeded to review the findings of facts of the lower courts.[37] Two exceptions are present in this case, namely: (1) when the findings of facts are conflicting; and (2) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. | |||||