This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-02-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute possession under claim of ownership. For him, possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the state. The possession of public land, however long the period thereof may have extended, never confers title thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with regard to public land does not operate against the state, unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the required number of years."[40] | |||||
|
2009-02-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In view of the nature of a Torrens title, a land registration court has the duty to determine whether the issuance of a new certificate of title will alter a valid and existing certificate of title.[24] An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title, [25] which is not allowed by law.[26] But the RTC need not wait for the decision of the DENR in the petition to cancel the survey plan in order to determine whether the subject property is already titled or forms part of already titled property. The court may now verify this allegation based on the respondent's survey plan vis-à-vis the certificates of title of the petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest. After all, a survey plan precisely serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land.[27] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
|||||
| The submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, in cases for application of original registration of land is a mandatory requirement. The reason for this rule is to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land. The failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to petitioner's application for registration.[17] However, in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals[18] and in the more recent cases of Spouses Recto v. Republic of the Philippines[19] and Republic of the Philippines v. Hubilla[20], the Court ruled that while the best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands (now the Lands Management Services of the DENR), blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification. In the present case, respondent submitted in evidence a blueprint copy of the Advance Plan of Lot 1061[21] and a Technical Description[22] thereof, both of which had been duly certified and approved by the Lands Management Services of the DENR. The Court finds these pieces of evidence as substantial compliance with the legal requirements for the proper identification of Lot 1061. The discrepancy in the common boundary that separates Lot 1061 from Lot 1058, as contained in the LRA Report does not cast doubt on the identity of the subject lot. As the CA correctly held, the discrepancy is not substantial because it does not unduly increase or affect the total area of the subject lot and at the same time prejudice the adjoining lot owner. It is only when the discrepancy results to an unexplained increase in the total area of the land sought to be registered that its identity is made doubtful. Besides, only a portion of the many boundaries of Lot 1061 has been found to bear a discrepancy in relation to the boundary of one adjoining lot and the LRA Report simply recommends that the Lands Management Services of the DENR verify the reported discrepancy and make the necessary corrections, if needed, in order to avoid duplication in the issuance of titles covering the same parcels of land. | |||||
|
2006-09-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| One of the mandatory requirements in applications of original registration of land is the submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan or the "sepia copy" (Diazo Polyester Film), duly approved by the Bureau of Lands. This is to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land. Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to petitioner's application for registration.[10] | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over her own property.[28] A mere casual cultivation of portions of land by the claimant does not constitute sufficient basis for a claim of ownership. Such possession is not exclusive and notorious as it gives rise to a presumptive grant from the State.[29] The applicant is burdened to offer proof of specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim over the land.[30] The good faith of the person consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom she received the property was the owner thereof and could transfer ownership.[31] | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The applicant is burdened to offer proof of specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim over the land.[73] Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would actually exercise over his own property.[74] A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute sufficient basis for a claim of ownership; such possession is not exclusive and notorious as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the State.[75] | |||||