This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| On this score, it bears stressing that the nature of reconstitution proceedings under RA 26 denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed, in its original form and condition.[40] As such, reconstitution must be granted only upon clear proof that the title sought to be restored had previously existed and was issued to the petitioner.[41] Strict compliance with the requirements of the law aims to thwart dishonest parties from abusing reconstitution proceedings as a means of illegally obtaining properties otherwise already owned by other parties. As the Court had eloquently pronounced in Director of Lands v. CA:[42] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes is an announcement of one's claim against the State and all other interested parties.[25] In fact, these documents already constitute prima facie evidence of possession.[26] Moreover, if the holders of the land present a deed of conveyance in their favor from its former owner to support their claim of ownership, the declaration of ownership and tax receipts relative to the property may be used to prove their good faith in occupying and possessing it.[27] Additionally, when considered with actual possession of the property, tax receipts constitute evidence of great value in support of the claim of title of ownership by prescription.[28] | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Respondents predicate their Petition for Reconstitution on Section 2(f) of RA 26. And to avail of its benefits, respondents presented survey plan,[22] technical description,[23] Certification issued by the Land Registration Authority,[24] Lot Data Computation,[25] and tax declarations.[26] Unfortunately, these pieces of documentary evidence are not similar to those mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e) of Section 2 of RA 26, which all pertain to documents issued or are on file with the Registry of Deeds. Hence, respondents' documentary evidence cannot be considered to fall under subparagraph (f). Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.[27] Thus, in Republic of the Philippines v. Santua,[28] we held that when Section 2(f) of RA 26 speaks of "any other document," the same must refer to similar documents previously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned in Sections 2(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Once again, we caution the courts against the hasty and reckless grant of petitions for reconstitution, especially when they involve vast properties, such as in this case. And, should a petition for reconstitution be denied for lack of sufficient basis, the petitioner is not entirely left without a remedy. He may still file an application for confirmation of his title under the provisions of the Land Registration Act, if he is, in fact, the lawful owner.[39] | |||||