This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-03-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Persons applying for registration of title under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529[11] must prove: (1) that the land sought to be registered forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, and (2) that they 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.[12] | |||||
|
2011-03-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| However, the third requirement, that respondent and his predecessors-in-interest be in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject property since June 12, 1945 or earlier, has not been satisfied. Respondent only managed to present oral and documentary evidence of his and his mother's ownership and possession of the land since 1958 through a photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale[24] dated July 8, 1958 between Eufrecina Navarro and Bibiana P. Rizalvo. He presented Tax Declaration No. 11078[25] for the year 1948 in the name of Eufrecina Navarro and real property tax receipts beginning in 1952.[26] In Llanes v. Republic,[27] the Court held that tax declarations are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.[28] However, even assuming that the 1948 Tax Declaration in the name of Eufrecina Navarro and the tax payment receipts could be taken in this case as proof of a claim of ownership, still, respondent lacks proof of occupation and possession beginning June 12, 1945 or earlier. What is categorically required by law is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[29] | |||||
|
2008-03-12 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, pursuant to the aforequoted provision of law, applicants for registration of title must prove: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, and (2) that they 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.[8] These requisites involve questions of fact which are not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. Factual findings of the court a quo are generally binding on this Court except for certain recognized exceptions, as is the case here, where the trial court and the Court of Appeals arrived at conflicting findings.[9] After a careful review of the records, we sustain the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Verily, the trial court just adopted entirely the statements embodied in the said Certification, a photocopied document, which had not been formally offered in evidence, without inquiring into the supposed attachments thereto, without examining the contents thereof, and without verifying whether such Certification really pertained to the lands in question. The trial court simply could not ascertain such facts, for nowhere in the records can be found the alleged attachments.[28] It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable.[29] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
|||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that the burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the applicant who must show clear, positive and convincing evidence that his alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law.[36] In the present case, the Court finds that respondent failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the legal requirements that the lands sought to be titled are alienable and disposable and that its predecessors- in-interest were already in possession of the subject lots since 1945 or earlier. | |||||
|
2006-07-31 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The above-quoted testimony of Pedro Bernardo is clearly insufficient. No other proof was presented to establish Bernardo's possession and occupation of the more than three (3) hectares of land sought to be registered. Possession is open when it is visible and apparent to a common observer.[27] Continuous possession consists of uninterrupted acts of nonpermissive possession of property by the current occupants and their predecessors.[28] To be notorious, possession must be so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public[29] or at least by the people in the vicinity of the premises.[30] Mere possession of land[31] and the making of vague assertions to the public that a possessor is claiming the land[32] are not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of open and notorious possession. Bernardo failed to show that his alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. Bare and general allegations, without more, do not amount to preponderant evidence that would shift the burden to the oppositor, in this case, the Republic.[33] Further, it militates against the claim of actual possession under a claim of ownership since June 1945, that the subject properties were declared for taxation purposes only in 1980, or five (5) years before the filing of the application.[34] | |||||