This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-04-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A case with parallel factual milieu is Modesto v. Urbina.[57] Like the spouses Marcelo, the respondents in said case relied on a MSA and tax declarations to substantiate their claim of possession over the contested land therein. In ruling for the petitioners in said case, the Court stressed that the mere declaration of land for taxation purposes does not constitute possession thereof nor is it proof of ownership in the absence of the claimant's actual possession.[58] We explained that unless a public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or actually alienated by the State to a private person, that piece of land remains part of the public domain, and its occupation, in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.[59] This finds support in Section 88 of the Public Land Act, which provides: Section 88. The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President. | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, only questions of law can be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[24] Since this Court is not a trier of facts, findings of fact of the appellate court are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[25] There are, however, several recognized exceptions to this rule, namely: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[26] [Emphases supplied] | |||||
|
2011-08-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| While the powers given to the DENR, through the Bureau of Lands, to alienate and dispose of public land do not divest regular courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants (to protect their respective possessions and occupations),[41] the respondents' complaint-in-intervention does not simply raise the issue of possession whether de jure or de facto but likewise raised the issue of ownership as basis to recover possession. Particularly, the respondents prayed for declaration of ownership of Lot 322. Ineluctably, the RTC would have to defer its ruling on the respondents' reivindicatory action pending final determination by the DENR, through the Lands Management Bureau, of the respondents' entitlement to a free patent, following the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. | |||||