Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. AVELINO R. DELA PAZ

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 183511 2015-03-25	REPUBLIC v. EMETERIA G. LUALHATI PERALTA, J.
Thus, pursuant to the aforequoted provision, applicants for registration of title must prove that: (1) the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; and (2) they, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.[15]
	GR No. 189970 2014-06-02	REPUBLIC v. CRISANTO S. RANESES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[38]
	GR No. 192717 2014-03-12	MINDA S. GAERLAN v. REPUBLIC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration, who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable.[35]
	GR No. 163767 2014-03-10	REPUBLIC v. ROSARIO DE GUZMAN VDA. DE JOSON BERSAMIN, J.
Under Section 14(1), therefore, the respondent had to prove that: (1) the land formed part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and (2) she, by herself or through her predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945, or earlier.[27] It is the applicant who carries the burden of proving that the two requisites have been met. Failure to do so warrants the dismissal of the application.
	GR No. 186639 2014-02-05	REPUBLIC v. EMMANUEL C. CORTEZ REYES, J.
Other than his bare claim that his family possessed the subject property since time immemorial, Cortez failed to present any evidence to show that he and his predecessors-in-interest indeed possessed the subject property prior to 1946; it is a mere claim and not factual proof of possession. "It is a rule that general statements that are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof of possession are unavailing and cannot suffice. An applicant in a land registration case cannot just harp on mere conclusions of law to embellish the application but must impress thereto the facts and circumstances evidencing the alleged ownership and possession of the land."[19]
	GR No. 195097 2012-08-13	REPUBLIC v. MARLON MEDIDA REYES, J.
We now resolve the petition's substantial issue. Under the Regalian Doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the inalienable public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration, who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[19]
	GR No. 183916 2012-04-25	SPS. NICANOR MAGNO AND CARIDAD MAGNO v. HEIRS OF PABLO PARULAN SERENO, J.
However, the DARAB and the CA were not swayed by these tax declarations, and rightly so. As we held in Republic v. dela Paz,[33]
	GR No. 170757 2011-11-28	VALIAO v. REPUBLIC PERALTA, J.
From the foregoing, petitioners need to prove that: (1) the land forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and (2) they, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier.[11] These the petitioners must prove by no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence.[12]
	GR No. 169599 2011-03-16	REPUBLIC v. JUANITO MANIMTIM MENDOZA, J.
Based on these legal parameters, applicants for registration of title under Section 14(1) must sufficiently establish: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and (3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.[9] These the respondents must prove by no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence.[10]