This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-06-02 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Clearly, the pieces of evidence submitted by respondent before the RTC in this case hardly satisfy the aforementioned documentary requirements. Given the lack of evidence that the subject properties are alienable and disposable, it becomes unnecessary for this Court to resolve whether the Inter-Office Memorandum should be given more credence over the ECD Memorandum. On this matter, this Court's ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. Lydia Capco de Tensuan[48] is enlightening: While we may have been lenient in some cases and accepted substantial compliance with the evidentiary requirements set forth in T.A.N. Properties, we cannot do the same for Tensuan in the case at bar. | |||||