This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Based on these legal parameters, applicants for registration of title under Section 14(1) must sufficiently establish: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and (3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[4] | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| However, in the present petition, the respondent failed to specifically show that she and her predecessors-in-interest had exercised acts of dominion over the subject lots. Admittedly, the respondent's best evidence to prove possession and ownership were tax declarations and receipts issued in her name or the names of her predecessors-in-interest, but these tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or right of possession over a piece of land. "Well settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. The fact that the disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in- interest does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership."[51] | |||||
|
2013-07-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On the question of whether or not respondent is estopped from assailing the decision of the RTC for failure of the OSG, as government representative, to participate in the proceedings before the trial court or to file an opposition to petitioner's petition for correction of entries in his service records, this Court rules that such an apparent oversight has no bearing on the validity of the appeal which the petitioner filed before the CA. Neither can the State, as represented by the government, be considered in estoppel due to the petitioner's seeming acquiescence to the judgment of the RTC when it initially made corrections to some of petitioner's records with the PNP. This Court has reiterated time and again that the absence of opposition from government agencies is of no controlling significance, because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents.[18] Nor is the Republic barred from assailing the decision granting the petition for correction of entries if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.[19] | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, on the peripheral issue of whether or not the OSG should be faulted for not filing an opposition to respondents' petition for reconstitution before the trial court, we rule that such an apparent oversight has no bearing on the validity of the appeal which the OSG filed before the Court of Appeals. This Court has reiterated time and again that the absence of opposition from government agencies is of no controlling significance because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents.[22] Neither is the Republic barred from assailing the decision granting the petition for reconstitution if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.[23] | |||||
|
2012-10-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.[77] | |||||