Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. RESTITUTO SARMIENTO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 160453 2012-11-12	REPUBLIC v. ARCADIO IVAN A. SANTOS III BERSAMIN, J.
In Menguito v. Republic,[35] which we reiterated in Republic v. Sarmiento,[36] we specifically resolved the issue of whether the notation on the survey plan was sufficient evidence to establish the alienability and disposability of public land, to wit: To prove that the land in question formed part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, petitioners relied on the printed words which read: "This survey plan is inside Alienable and Disposable Land Area, Project No. 27-B as per L.C. Map No. 2623, certified by the Bureau of Forestry on January 3, 1968," appearing on Exhibit "E" (Survey Plan No. Swo-13-000227).
	GR No. 171514 2012-07-18	REPUBLIC v. DOMINGO ESPINOSA REYES, J.
In Republic v. Sarmiento,[29] this Court reiterated the earlier ruling in Menguito v. Republic[30] that the notation made by a surveyor-geodetic engineer that the property surveyed is alienable and disposable is not the positive government act that would remove the property from the inalienable domain. Neither it is the evidence accepted as sufficient to controvert the presumption that the property is inalienable: To discharge the onus, respondent relies on the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the DENR Center which bears the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer that "this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B. L.C. Map No. 2623, certified on January 3, 1968 by the Bureau of Forestry."
	GR No. 171631 2010-11-15	REPUBLIC v. AVELINO R. DELA PAZ PERALTA, J.
In Republic v. Sarmiento,[17] the Court ruled that the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer on the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Center, that "this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B. L.C. Map No. 2623, certified on January 3, 1968 by the Bureau of Forestry," is insufficient and does not constitute incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption that the land remains part of the inalienable public domain.
	GR No. 180067 2009-06-30	REPUBLIC v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VELASCO JR., J.
It is well-settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government, and it is indispensable that the persons claiming title to a public land should show that their title was acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.[16] In the instant case, it is undisputed that the subject lot has already been declared alienable and disposable by the government on May 16, 1993 or a little over five years before the application for registration was filed by INC.
	GR No. 159589 2008-12-23	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF JUAN FABIO CARPIO, J.
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141), also known as the Public Land Act, remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain, other than timber and mineral lands.[28] Under the Regalian doctrine embodied in our Constitution, land that has not been acquired from the government, either by purchase, grant or any other mode recognized by law, belongs to the State as part of the public domain.[29] No public land can be acquired by private persons through any other means, and it is indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired through purchase or grant from the State, or through any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.[30]