This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners next argue that Tax Declaration No. 48221 in the name of Santiago Puyo enjoys the presumption of regularity in its issuance. It is a good time as any to re-state that this rule is a mere presumption, not absolute nor inflexible and applies only in the absence of proof to the contrary.[21] Besides, the mere fact that the disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the name of the petitioners does not necessarily prove ownership. In the same manner, neither does the payment of taxes conclusively prove ownership of the land paid for.[22] It is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership.[23] | |||||