This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Our perusal of the record shows that, as the party asserting their title, the Spouses Garcia failed to prove that they have a bona fide title to the building in question. Aside from their postulation that as title holders of the land, the law presumes them to be owners of the improvements built thereon, the Spouses Garcia were unable to adduce credible evidence to prove their ownership of the property. In contrast, Villasi was able to satisfactorily establish the ownership of FGCI thru the pieces of evidence she appended to her opposition. Worthy to note is the fact that the building in litigation was declared for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI and not in the Spouses Garcias'. While it is true that tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute credible proof of claim of title over the property.[23] In Buduhan v. Pakurao,[24] we underscored the significance of a tax declaration as proof that a holder has claim of title, and, we gave weight to the demonstrable interest of the claimant holding a tax receipt: Although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[25] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Possession is acquired in any of the following ways: (1) by the material occupation of the thing; (2) by the exercise of a right; (3) by the fact that the property is subject to the action of our will; and (4) by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring the right.[19] In Director of Lands v. IAC,[20] we explained the nature of the possession required to confirm one's title as follows: Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2008-06-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, respondent's evidence on its alleged open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the property falls short of the requirements under the law. Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked off by the public or the people in the neighborhood. Use of land is adverse when it is open and notorious.[29] | |||||
|
2007-09-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Prescription is another mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over immovable property.[23] It is concerned with lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse.[24] Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine.[25] It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional;[26] exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit;[27] and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood.[28] The party who asserts ownership by adverse possession must prove the presence of the essential elements of acquisitive prescription. | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We agree with the CA that while tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.[17] The house which petitioner claims to be co-owned by his late father had been consistently declared for taxation purposes in the name of respondent, and this fact, taken with the other circumstances above-mentioned, inexorably lead to the conclusion that respondent is the sole owner of the house subject matter of the litigation. | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, the records do not support the argument of respondents that Santiago's alleged possession and cultivation of Lot No. 379 is in the nature contemplated by the Public Land Act which requires more than constructive possession and casual cultivation. As explained by the Court in Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court:[36] | |||||