This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the evidence presented by the respondents does not qualify as the "well-nigh incontrovertible" kind that is required to prove title thru possession and occupation of public land since 12 June 1945 or earlier.[44] Clearly, respondents are not entitled to registration under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529. | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Both under the 1935 and the present Constitutions, the conservation no less than the utilization of the natural resources is ordained. There would be a failure to abide by its command if the judiciary does not scrutinize with care applications to private ownership of real estate. To be granted, they must be grounded in well-nigh incontrovertible evidence. Where, as in this case, no such proof would be forthcoming, there is no justification for viewing such claim with favor. It is a basic assumption of our polity that lands of whatever classification belong to the state. Unless alienated in accordance with law, it retains its rights over the same as dominus.[29] (Citations omitted) | |||||