This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-08-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, it must be pointed out that petitioners' contention that the State has the burden to prove that the land which it avers to be of public domain is really of such nature applies only in instances where the applicant has been in possession of the property since time immemorial. When referring to this type of possession, it means possession of which no person living has seen the beginning and the existence of which such person has learned from the latter's elders.[31] Immemorial possession justifies the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been private property even before the Spanish conquest.[32] The possession of petitioners in this case does not fall under the above-named exception as their possession, by their own admission, only commenced sometime in 1934. | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| No evidence on record shows that Spouses Mauricio and Luz Melendez cultivated, had control over, or used the whole or even a greater portion of the tract of land for agricultural purposes.[24] Moreover, only one tenant worked on the land, and there is no evidence as to how big was the portion occupied by the tenant. Moreover, there is no competent proof that the Melendez Spouses declared the land in their name for taxation purposes or paid its taxes. While tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.[25] The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[26] | |||||