This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| On the matter of proof of the subject property's identity, jurisprudence provides that the presentation of the original tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with, subject however to certain conditions. Contrary to the petitioner's claim, the original clothing plans that cover the subject properties do not form part of the case records. The Court has nonetheless held in Republic v. Espinosa:[16] | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. Espinosa,[11] citing Republic v. Sarmiento[12] and Menguito v. Republic,[13] the Court reiterated the rule that that a notation made by a surveyor-geodetic engineer that the property surveyed was alienable and disposable was not the positive government act that would remove the property from the inalienable domain and neither was it the evidence accepted as sufficient to controvert the presumption that the property was inalienable. Thus: To discharge the onus, respondent relies on the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the DENR Center which bears the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer that "this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B. L.C. Map No. 2623, certified on January 3, 1968 by the Bureau of Forestry." | |||||
|
2014-02-05 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 sanctions the original registration of lands acquired by prescription under the provisions of existing laws. "As Section 14(2) [of P.D. No. 1529] categorically provides, only private properties may be acquired thru prescription and under Articles 420 and 421 of the Civil Code, only those properties, which are not for public use, public service or intended for the development of national wealth, are considered private."[20] | |||||