This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| However, as found by the courts a quo, it is clear from the records that respondent presented several pieces of documentary evidence to prove that he openly possessed the properties. He submitted notarized Deeds of Sale, Agreements of Partition and Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate and Sale to show the acquisition of the lands from his predecessors-in-interest.[22] | |||||
|
2007-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| IN ANY EVENT, Marina's heirs as applicants in this land registration case "bear the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain."[37] This they failed to discharge. | |||||
|
2003-07-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As an applicant for registration of a parcel of land, respondent had the initial obligation to show that the property involved is agricultural. Being the interested party, it was incumbent upon her to prove that the land being registered is indeed alienable or disposable. She cannot rely on the mere presumption that it was agricultural and, therefore, alienable part of the public domain.[20] Thus, in Director of Lands v. Funtilar,[21] we held:It was rather sweeping for the appellate court to rule that after an applicant files his application for registration, the burden shifts totally to the government to prove that the land forms part of the unclassified forest zone. The ruling in Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry (126 SCRA 69) governs applications for confirmation of imperfect title. The applicant shoulders the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. Moreover, the absence of opposition from the government agencies is of no moment because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents.[22] | |||||