This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The answer is in the affirmative. In Republic v. Guinto-Aldana,[19] this Court has relaxed the requirement for the submission of the tracing cloth plan by holding that: Yet if the reason for requiring an applicant to adduce in evidence the original tracing cloth plan is merely to provide a convenient and necessary means to afford certainty as to the exact identity of the property applied for registration and to ensure that the same does not overlap with the boundaries of the adjoining lots, there stands to be no reason why a registration application must be denied for failure to present the original tracing cloth plan, especially where it is accompanied by pieces of evidence—such as a duly executed blueprint of the survey plan and a duly executed technical description of the property—which may likewise substantially and with as much certainty prove the limits and extent of the property sought to be registered. | |||||
|
2013-11-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Second, while Cresencia registered in her name the adjoining lot (which they had been occupying at the time the RCAM filed its application and where their La Compania Refreshment Store stood), she never had the property registered in her name. Neither did Cresencia or her predecessors-in-interest declare the property for taxation purposes nor had the property surveyed in their names to properly identify it and to specifically determine its metes and bounds. The declaration for taxation purposes of property in their names would have at least served as proof that she or her predecessors-in-interest had a claim over the property[43] that could be labeled as "possession" if coupled with proof of actual possession. | |||||
|
2012-07-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Therefore, even if Espinosa's application may not be dismissed due to his failure to present the original tracing cloth of the survey plan, there are numerous grounds for its denial. The blueprint copy of the advanced survey plan may be admitted as evidence of the identity and location of the subject property if: (a) it was duly executed by a licensed geodetic engineer; (b) it proceeded officially from the Land Management Services (LMS) of the DENR; and (c) it is accompanied by a technical description of the property which is certified as correct by the geodetic surveyor who conducted the survey and the LMS of the DENR. As ruled in Republic v. Guinto-Aldana,[32] the identity of the land, its boundaries and location can be established by other competent evidence apart from the original tracing cloth such as a duly executed blueprint of the survey plan and technical description: Yet if the reason for requiring an applicant to adduce in evidence the original tracing cloth plan is merely to provide a convenient and necessary means to afford certainty as to the exact identity of the property applied for registration and to ensure that the same does not overlap with the boundaries of the adjoining lots, there stands to be no reason why a registration application must be denied for failure to present the original tracing cloth plan, especially where it is accompanied by pieces of evidence such as a duly executed blueprint of the survey plan and a duly executed technical description of the property which may likewise substantially and with as much certainty prove the limits and extent of the property sought to be registered.[33] | |||||