Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NESTOR PAGKATIPUNAN v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 160453 2012-11-12	REPUBLIC v. ARCADIO IVAN A. SANTOS III BERSAMIN, J.
Indeed, under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[30] No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the Government. It is indispensable, therefore, that there is a showing of a title from the State.[31] Occupation of public land in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.[32]
	GR No. 175846 2010-07-06	REPUBLIC v. ROSILA ROCHE ABAD, J.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State and the latter is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land. Thus, the State presumably owns all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership. To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant that the land subject of registration is alienable and disposable.[24]
	GR NO. 166865 2007-03-02	ANGELITA F. BUENAVENTURA v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is true that under the Regalian Doctrine all lands of the public domain belong to the State and all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[18] However, such presumption is not conclusive. It can be rebutted by the applicant's presentation of incontrovertible evidence showing that the land subject of the application for registration is alienable and disposable.[19]
	GR NO. 146874 2006-07-20	REPUBLIC v. SOCORRO P. JACOB CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The presumption is that lands of whatever classification belong to the State.[22] Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.[23] The statute of limitations with regard to public agricultural lands does not operate against the State unless the occupant proves possession and occupation of the same after a claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from the State.[24]
	GR NO. 163766 2006-06-22	REPUBLIC v. CANDY MAKER CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The presumption is that lands of whatever classification belong to the State.[65] Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.[66] The statute of limitations with regard to public agricultural lands does not operate against the State unless the occupant proves possession and occupation of the same after a claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from the State.[67]
	GR NO. 146527 2005-01-31	REPUBLIC v. MANNA PROPERTIES CARPIO, J.
Under the Regalian doctrine, the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. This is premised on the basic doctrine that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[13] Any applicant for confirmation of imperfect title bears the burden of proving that he is qualified to have the land titled in his name.[14] Although Section 48 of CA 141 gives rise to a right that is only subject to formal recognition, it is still incumbent upon any claimant to first prove open, continuous and adverse possession for the requisite period of time.[15] It is only when the applicant complies with this condition that he may invoke the rights given by CA 141.
	GR No. 150413 2003-07-01	REPUBLIC v. ALEXANDRA LAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner further submits that respondent failed to show that the land subject of her application is classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Under the Regalian doctrine which is embodied in our Constitution,[14] all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.[15] All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[16] Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain.[17] To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[18]