Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. CA AND SPS. MARIO B. LAPIÑA AND FLOR DE VEGA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 171514 2012-07-18	REPUBLIC v. DOMINGO ESPINOSA REYES, J.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[25] the applicants therein entered into possession of the property on June 17, 1978 and filed their application on February 5, 1987. Nonetheless, there is evidence that the individuals from whom the applicant purchased the property, or their predecessors-in-interest, had been in possession since 1937. Thus, during the effectivity of Section 48(b) as amended by R.A. No. 1942, or while the prevailing rule was possession and occupation for thirty (30) years, or prior to the issuance of P.D. No. 1073, the thirty (30)-year prescriptive period was already completed.
	GR NO. 170724 2007-01-29	REPUBLIC v. SAN LORENZO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GARCIA, J.
That his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same must either be since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act.[13] All that the CENRO certificate evidences is the alienability of the land involved, not the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof by the respondent or its predecessors-in-interest for the period prescribed by law.
	GR NO. 143491 2006-12-06	REPUBLIC v. EFREN M. CARRASCO GARCIA, J.
SO ORDERED. In its decision, the CA held that the subject land is alienable in view of the certification from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that the land was verified to be within the alienable and disposable land of the public domain and outside of any civil or military reservation. On the issue of whether the respondent was qualified to have the land registered in his name, the CA ruled in the affirmative having found the evidence sufficient to establish respondent's and Mingao's ownership and possession of the land in accordance with the rule laid down in Republic v. Court of Appeals[6] that occupation and cultivation for more than 30 years by an applicant and his predecessor-in-interest vest title on such applicant so as to segregate the land from the mass of the public domain.
	GR NO. 143491 2006-12-06	REPUBLIC v. EFREN M. CARRASCO GARCIA, J.
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. Clearly then, the reliance placed by the appellate court in Republic v. Court of Appeals[17] where we ruled that occupation and cultivation for more than 30 years by an applicant and his predecessor-in-interest vest title on such applicant so as to segregate the land from the mass of public land, is erroneous. Said ruling has been effectively superseded by subsequent legislations which amended Section 48(b) the Public Land Act. The case of Republic v. Doldol,[18] cited in Igtiben v. Republic,[19] provides a summary of these amendments, to wit:The original Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141 provided for possession and occupation of lands of the public domain since July 26, 1894. This was superseded by R.A. No. 1942 which provided for a simple thirty-year prescriptive period of occupation by an applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The same, however, has already been amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, approved on January 25, 1977. As amended Section 48(b) now reads:
	GR No. 158449 2004-10-22	LUNINGNING P. DEL ROSARIO-IGTIBEN v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In general, an applicant for judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title under the Public Land Act must be able to prove that: (1) the land is alienable public land; and (2) his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same must either be since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act.[15]
	GR No. 158449 2004-09-22	LUNINGNING P. DEL ROSARIO-IGTIBEN v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In general, an applicant for judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title under the Public Land Act must be able to prove that: (1) the land is alienable public land; and (2) his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same must either be since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act.[15]