This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the Court has held that intermittent and sporadic assertion of alleged ownership does not prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation. In this case, Belmonte's irregular and erratic declaration and payment of real property taxes belie her claim of open and continuous possession of the said lots.[56] | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Assuming arguendo that somebody cultivated the land, mere casual cultivation of the land does not amount to exclusive and notorious possession that would give rise to ownership.[60] Except as to the self-serving declaration made by Marietta, no other evidence was shown by Belmonte to substantiate her statements. | |||||
|
2012-07-06 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, in Wee v. Republic,[18] this Court held it is not enough that improvements or signs of use and cultivation can be found on the property; there must be proof that the use or development of the property is attributable to the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest: We are, therefore, constrained to conclude that the mere existence of an unspecified number of coffee plants, sans any evidence as to who planted them, when they were planted, whether cultivation or harvesting was made or what other acts of occupation and ownership were undertaken, is not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's right to the registration of title in her favor. [19] | |||||
|
2012-04-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Tax declarations per se do not qualify as competent evidence of actual possession for purposes of prescription. More so, if the payment of the taxes due on the property is episodic, irregular and random such as in this case. Indeed, how can the petitioners' claim of possession for the entire prescriptive period be ascribed any ounce of credibility when taxes were paid only on eleven (11) occasions within the 40-year period from 1961 to 2001? In Wee v. Republic of the Philippines,[19] this Court stated that: It bears stressing that petitioner presented only five tax declarations (for the years 1957, 1961, 1967, 1980 and 1985) for a claimed possession and occupation of more than 45 years (1945-1993). This type of intermittent and sporadic assertion of alleged ownership does not prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation. In any event, in the absence of other competent evidence, tax declarations do not conclusively establish either possession or declarant's right to registration of title.[20] (emphasis supplied and citation omitted) | |||||
|
2012-02-20 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| First, the twelve (12) Tax Declarations covering Area A and the eleven (11) Tax Declarations covering Area B for a claimed possession of more than forty-six (46) years (1948-1994) do not qualify as competent evidence of actual possession and occupation. As this Court ruled in Wee v. Republic of the Philippines:[27] | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner likewise failed to prove the alleged possession of his predecessors-in-interest. His witness Luis Olan testified that he had been visiting the land along with his father Lucio since he was 6 years old (he was 70 years old at the time he testified), or as early as 1936. Yet, there was no evidence that Lucio Olan declared the property for tax purposes at anytime before he sold it to Anatalio Aranda. There is also no showing that Anatalio Aranda declared the property in his name from the time he bought it from Lucio Olan. And even assuming that Lucio actually planted rice and corn on the land, such statement is not sufficient to establish possession in the concept of owner as contemplated by law. Mere casual cultivation of the land does not amount to exclusive and notorious possession that would give rise to ownership.[22] Specific acts of dominion must be clearly shown by the applicant. | |||||