Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDNA COLLADO v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 171209 2012-06-27	SPS. AMBROSIO DECALENG AND SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS) AND JULIA “WANAY” DECALENG v. BISHOP OF MISSIONARY DISTRICT OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OF PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN US LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is a hornbook principle that "a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein."[57] In order to establish a system of registration by which recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible, and imprescriptible, the legislature passed Act No. 496, which took effect on February 1, 1903. Act No. 496 placed all registered lands in the Philippines under the Torrens system. The Torrens system requires the government to issue a certificate of title stating that the person named in the title is the owner of the property described therein, subject to liens and encumbrances annotated on the title or reserved by law. The certificate of title is indefeasible and imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of the certificate. Presidential Decree No. 1529, known as the Property Registration Decree, enacted on June 11, 1978, amended and updated Act No. 496.[58]
	GR No. 170409 2008-01-28	GREGORIA MARTINEZ v. CA TINGA, J,
as well as the procedural requirements for acquisition of public lands.[23] Each mode of disposition is appropriately covered by a separate chapter of the Public Land Act. There are specific requirements and application procedures for every mode.[24]
	GR No. 168661 2007-10-26	ESTATE OF LATE JESUS S. YUJUICO v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
In Collado v. Court of Appeals,[18] the government, represented by the Solicitor General pursuant to Section 9(2) of BP Blg. 129, filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA. Similarly in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals,[19] the Solicitor General correctly filed the annulment of judgment with the said appellate court.
	GR NO. 158328 2007-02-23	FRANCO ESGUERRA v. ALFONSO MANANTAN QUISUMBING, J.
However, while this Court declares that Lot No. 661 is a private property and not part of the public domain, the petitioner's title as co-owner of the said lot is imperfect and still subject to the rules on confirmation of title under Section 48 (b)[28] of the Public Land Act.[29] As an applicant for confirmation of title, petitioner has the burden of proving that he meets the requirements of the law.[30]
	GR NO. 146874 2006-07-20	REPUBLIC v. SOCORRO P. JACOB CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the case at bar, when private respondent filed her application with the RTC on May 6, 1994, Lot No. 4094 was no longer alienable and disposable property of the public domain, since as of August 14, 1970, by virtue of Proclamation No. 739, it was segregated from the public domain and declared part of the reservation for the development of geothermal energy.[25] Private respondent filed her application for confirmation 24 years after the said proclamation was issued; thus, the period of her possession and occupancy after such proclamation can no longer be tacked in favor of the claimant.[26]
	GR NO. 129546 2005-12-13	PROVINCE OF RIZAL v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This brings us to the second self-evident point. Water is life, and must be saved at all costs. In Collado v. Court of Appeals,[36] we had occasion to reaffirm our previous discussion in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[37] on the primordial importance of watershed areas, thus: "The most important product of a watershed is water, which is one of the most important human necessities. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but also cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational" responsibility that needs to be answered now.[38]
	GR NO. 129546 2005-12-13	PROVINCE OF RIZAL v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This brings us to the second self-evident point. Water is life, and must be saved at all costs. In Collado v. Court of Appeals,[36] we had occasion to reaffirm our previous discussion in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[37] on the primordial importance of watershed areas, thus: "The most important product of a watershed is water, which is one of the most important human necessities. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but also cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational" responsibility that needs to be answered now.[38]
	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.