This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-01-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Private respondent, being the applicant for registration of land and one who relies on some documents enforcing her alleged title thereto, must prove not only the genuineness of said title but also the identity of the land therein referred to,[31] inasmuch as this is required by law. The dispute in this case pertains to the correctness of the survey of specific areas of lands. It must be borne in mind that what defines a piece of land is not the size or area mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits.[32] Considering that the writ of possession was sought by private respondent against persons who were in "actual possession under claim of ownership," the latter's possession raises a disputable presumption of ownership.[33] This unrebutted presumption militates against the claim of private respondent, especially considering the evidentiary rule under Article 434 of the Civil Code that a claimant of a parcel of land, such as private respondent, must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.[34] | |||||