Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. BEDER MORANDARTE AND MARINA FEBRERA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 155688 2007-11-28	NATIVIDAD FIGURACION v. SPS. CRESENCIANO AND AMELITA LIBI AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Reversion is a proceeding by which the State seeks the return of lands of the public domain or the improvements thereon through the cancellation of private title erroneously or fraudulently issued over it.[32] The one crucial element which sets it apart from all other actions involving possession or title to property is the positive averment in the complaint of state ownership of the property in dispute.[33]
	GR No. 155483 2007-04-27	HEIRS OF PEDRO PASAG v. SPS. LORENZO AND FLORENTINA PAROCHA VELASCO JR., J.
It must be stressed that fraud is not presumed; and it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence,[30] and not by mere conjectures or speculations.[31] No such evidence was presented in this case to sustain petitioners' allegations.
	GR NO. 152570 2006-09-27	SAAD AGRO-INDUSTRIES v. REPUBLIC TINGA, J.
It has been held that a complaint for reversion involves a serious controversy, involving a question of fraud and misrepresentation committed against the government and it is aimed at the return of the disputed portion of the public domain. It seeks to cancel the original certificate of registration, and nullify the original certificate of title, including the transfer certificate of title of the successors-in-interest because the same were all procured through fraud and misrepresentation.[23] Thus, the State, as the party alleging the fraud and misrepresentation that attended the application of the free patent, bears that burden of proof. Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate.[24]
	GR NO. 162371 2005-08-25	MARY HELEN ESTRADA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Nevertheless, in this case, records reveal that the trial court sent out notices to petitioner and her counsel. In a Resolution dated September 30, 2002, the CA required the Office of the Solicitor General to submit proof of service on petitioner and her counsel of the RTC's Order dated March 31, 1997 setting the date for reception of evidence on May 14, 1997; the Order dated May 14, 1997 considering petitioner to have waived her right to present evidence in her defense in view of the fact that she has jumped bail; and the RTC Decision dated July 2, 1997. On December 20, 2002, the Office of the Solicitor General, submitted such proof of service. Thus, in its Decision promulgated on October 28, 2003, the CA made the factual finding that petitioner and her counsel were indeed duly served with copies of the assailed RTC orders and decision at the addresses they submitted to the trial court. Factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court.[11] As held in Morandarte vs. Court of Appeals,[12] "inquiry upon the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusion is not the function of the Supreme Court for the Court is not a trier of facts."