Lawyerly

GR No. 158630

2009-09-04

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As for petitioner's reliance on the tax declarations and receipts of realty tax payments, the documents - tax declarations for Lot No. 13687 and Lot No. 13686 which were issued only in 1991 and 1994,[33] respectively, are indicia of the possession in the concept of an owner.[34] There is no showing of tax payments before these years.

GR No. 166377

2008-11-28

MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES

NACHURA, J.

Pursuant to the above resolution, any argument raised in her petition, but not raised in her Memorandum,[28] is deemed abandoned.[29] Hence, the only issue proper for determination is the propriety of deducting P362,386.87 from her total benefits, for taxation purposes. Nevertheless, in order to resolve the legality of the deduction, it is imperative that we settle, once and for all, the ground relied upon by respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner, as well as the nature of the benefits given to her after such termination. Only then can we decide whether the amount deducted by the respondent should be paid to the petitioner.

GR No. 156078

2008-03-14

MARASIGAN v. MARASIGAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The parties were duly informed by the Court in its Resolution dated 17 September 2003 that no new issues may be raised by a party in his/its Memorandum and the issues raised in his/its pleadings but not included in the Memorandum shall be deemed waived or abandoned. The raising of additional issues in a memorandum before the Supreme Court is irregular, because said memorandum is supposed to be in support merely of the position taken by the party concerned in his petition, and the raising of new issues amounts to the filing of a petition beyond the reglementary period.[35] The purpose of this rule is to provide all parties to a case a fair opportunity to be heard. No new points of law, theories, issues or arguments may be raised by a party in the Memorandum for the reason that to permit these would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[36]

GR NO. 159796

2007-07-17

ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

NACHURA, J.

Petitioners failed to pursue in their Memorandum the contention in the Complaint that the imposition of the Universal Charge on all end-users is oppressive and confiscatory, and amounts to taxation without representation. Hence, such contention is deemed waived or abandoned per Resolution[64] of August 3, 2004.[65] Moreover, the determination of whether or not a tax is excessive, oppressive or confiscatory is an issue which essentially involves questions of fact, and thus, this Court is precluded from reviewing the same.[66]

GR NO. 157466

2007-06-21

REPUBLIC v. CHERYL B. BIBONIA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In the present case, applicants-appellees' predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive possession of the disputed land as early as 1955 (Commissioner's Report, p. 2; Record, p. 123), thus, they only stepped into the shoes of their predecessors-in-interest and by virtue thereof, acquired all the legal rights necessary to confirm what would otherwise be deemed as an imperfect title.[9] Although respondents' possession and that of their predecessors-in-interest was more than 39 years when they filed their application for registration in 1994, that period of possession will not suffice for purposes of registration of title. What is required is open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession by respondents and their predecessors-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[10] Much as we want to conform to the State's policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and remain true to the ideal of social justice, our hands are tied by the law's stringent safeguards against registering imperfect titles.[11]

GR NO. 141924

2007-01-23

VERNON T. REYES v. REPUBLIC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J

It is doctrinally settled that a person who seeks confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest shoulders the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence compliance with the requirements of Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended.[8] Unfortunately, petitioner failed to discharge that burden.

GR NO. 148423

2006-12-06

ESPERANZA G. FRONDARINA v. NAPOLEON MALAZARTE

VELASCO, JR., J.

Verily, it has been settled jurisprudence that although tax declarations or real estate payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.[28] Based on the tax declarations and tax receipts of both parties, we rule that petitioners have sufficiently adduced convincing evidence of possession over the disputed lot.

GR NO. 150000

2006-09-26

REPUBLIC v. TRI-PLUS CORPORATION

Finally, while it is an acknowledged policy of the State to promote the distribution of alienable public lands as a spur to economic growth and in line with the ideal of social justice, the law imposes stringent safeguards upon the grant of such resources lest they fall into the wrong hands to the prejudice of the national patrimony.[37] The Court must not, therefore, relax the stringent safeguards relative to the registration of imperfect titles.

GR NO. 146874

2006-07-20

REPUBLIC v. SOCORRO P. JACOB

CALLEJO, SR., J.

While tax receipts and tax payment receipts themselves do not convincingly prove title to the land,[32] these are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession.[33] They constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property, particularly when accompanied by proof of actual possession.[34] The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[35]

GR NO. 163766

2006-06-22

REPUBLIC v. CANDY MAKER

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Third. Cruz claimed that he and his parents cultivated the property and planted palay and vegetables, and that they had been paying the realty taxes over the property before his parents died. However, no tax declarations under the names of the spouses Apolonio Cruz and/or Eladia Cruz and his siblings were presented, or realty tax receipts evidencing payment of such taxes. Indeed, while tax receipts and tax payment receipts themselves do not convincingly prove title to the land,[78] these are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession.[79] While tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property, particularly when accompanied by proof of actual possession of property.[80] The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[81]

GR No. 157306

2005-11-25

REPUBLIC v. ANATALIA ACTUB TIU ESTONILO

PANGANIBAN, J.

We are not convinced. As a rule, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive and binding on this Court. To this rule, however, there are settled exceptions; for instance, when the judgment assailed is not supported by sufficient evidence or is based on a misapprehension of facts.[15] We find that these exceptions apply here.

	GR No. 158630 2009-09-04	JOYCE Y. LIM v. REPUBLIC CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for petitioner's reliance on the tax declarations and receipts of realty tax payments, the documents - tax declarations for Lot No. 13687 and Lot No. 13686 which were issued only in 1991 and 1994,[33] respectively, are indicia of the possession in the concept of an owner.[34] There is no showing of tax payments before these years.
	GR No. 166377 2008-11-28	MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES NACHURA, J.
Pursuant to the above resolution, any argument raised in her petition, but not raised in her Memorandum,[28] is deemed abandoned.[29] Hence, the only issue proper for determination is the propriety of deducting P362,386.87 from her total benefits, for taxation purposes. Nevertheless, in order to resolve the legality of the deduction, it is imperative that we settle, once and for all, the ground relied upon by respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner, as well as the nature of the benefits given to her after such termination. Only then can we decide whether the amount deducted by the respondent should be paid to the petitioner.
	GR No. 156078 2008-03-14	MARASIGAN v. MARASIGAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The parties were duly informed by the Court in its Resolution dated 17 September 2003 that no new issues may be raised by a party in his/its Memorandum and the issues raised in his/its pleadings but not included in the Memorandum shall be deemed waived or abandoned. The raising of additional issues in a memorandum before the Supreme Court is irregular, because said memorandum is supposed to be in support merely of the position taken by the party concerned in his petition, and the raising of new issues amounts to the filing of a petition beyond the reglementary period.[35] The purpose of this rule is to provide all parties to a case a fair opportunity to be heard. No new points of law, theories, issues or arguments may be raised by a party in the Memorandum for the reason that to permit these would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[36]
	GR NO. 159796 2007-07-17	ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NACHURA, J.
Petitioners failed to pursue in their Memorandum the contention in the Complaint that the imposition of the Universal Charge on all end-users is oppressive and confiscatory, and amounts to taxation without representation. Hence, such contention is deemed waived or abandoned per Resolution[64] of August 3, 2004.[65] Moreover, the determination of whether or not a tax is excessive, oppressive or confiscatory is an issue which essentially involves questions of fact, and thus, this Court is precluded from reviewing the same.[66]
	GR NO. 157466 2007-06-21	REPUBLIC v. CHERYL B. BIBONIA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In the present case, applicants-appellees' predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive possession of the disputed land as early as 1955 (Commissioner's Report, p. 2; Record, p. 123), thus, they only stepped into the shoes of their predecessors-in-interest and by virtue thereof, acquired all the legal rights necessary to confirm what would otherwise be deemed as an imperfect title.[9] Although respondents' possession and that of their predecessors-in-interest was more than 39 years when they filed their application for registration in 1994, that period of possession will not suffice for purposes of registration of title. What is required is open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession by respondents and their predecessors-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[10] Much as we want to conform to the State's policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and remain true to the ideal of social justice, our hands are tied by the law's stringent safeguards against registering imperfect titles.[11]
	GR NO. 141924 2007-01-23	VERNON T. REYES v. REPUBLIC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J
It is doctrinally settled that a person who seeks confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest shoulders the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence compliance with the requirements of Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended.[8] Unfortunately, petitioner failed to discharge that burden.
	GR NO. 148423 2006-12-06	ESPERANZA G. FRONDARINA v. NAPOLEON MALAZARTE VELASCO, JR., J.
Verily, it has been settled jurisprudence that although tax declarations or real estate payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.[28] Based on the tax declarations and tax receipts of both parties, we rule that petitioners have sufficiently adduced convincing evidence of possession over the disputed lot.
	GR NO. 150000 2006-09-26	REPUBLIC v. TRI-PLUS CORPORATION
Finally, while it is an acknowledged policy of the State to promote the distribution of alienable public lands as a spur to economic growth and in line with the ideal of social justice, the law imposes stringent safeguards upon the grant of such resources lest they fall into the wrong hands to the prejudice of the national patrimony.[37] The Court must not, therefore, relax the stringent safeguards relative to the registration of imperfect titles.
	GR NO. 146874 2006-07-20	REPUBLIC v. SOCORRO P. JACOB CALLEJO, SR., J.
While tax receipts and tax payment receipts themselves do not convincingly prove title to the land,[32] these are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession.[33] They constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property, particularly when accompanied by proof of actual possession.[34] The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[35]
	GR NO. 163766 2006-06-22	REPUBLIC v. CANDY MAKER CALLEJO, SR., J.
Third. Cruz claimed that he and his parents cultivated the property and planted palay and vegetables, and that they had been paying the realty taxes over the property before his parents died. However, no tax declarations under the names of the spouses Apolonio Cruz and/or Eladia Cruz and his siblings were presented, or realty tax receipts evidencing payment of such taxes. Indeed, while tax receipts and tax payment receipts themselves do not convincingly prove title to the land,[78] these are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession.[79] While tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property, particularly when accompanied by proof of actual possession of property.[80] The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[81]
	GR No. 157306 2005-11-25	REPUBLIC v. ANATALIA ACTUB TIU ESTONILO PANGANIBAN, J.
We are not convinced. As a rule, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive and binding on this Court. To this rule, however, there are settled exceptions; for instance, when the judgment assailed is not supported by sufficient evidence or is based on a misapprehension of facts.[15] We find that these exceptions apply here.

REPUBLIC v. SPS. TEODORO AND DELIA KALAW