This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-11-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| For double taxation in the objectionable or prohibited sense to exist, "the same property must be taxed twice, when it should be taxed but once."[204] "[B]oth taxes must be imposed on the same property or subject- matter, for the same purpose, by the same . . . taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction or taxing district, during the same taxing period, and they must be the same kind or character of tax."[205] | |||||
|
2014-11-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| "It is something not favored, but is permissible, provided some other constitutional requirement is not thereby violated, such as the requirement that taxes must be uniform."[209] | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Even assuming arguendo that Pedro Barz acquired title to the property through mistake or fraud, petitioners are nonetheless barred from filing their claim of ownership. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes within ten years from the time of its creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property.[7] Since registration of real property is considered a constructive notice to all persons, then the ten-year prescriptive period is reckoned from the time of such registering, filing or entering.[8] Thus, petitioners should have filed an action for reconveyance within ten years from the issuance of OCT No. 521 in November 16, 1968. This, they failed to do so. | |||||