This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As a rule, implied resulting trusts do not prescribe except when the trustee repudiates the trust. Further, the action to reconvey does not prescribe so long as the property stands in the name of the trustee.[19] To allow prescription would be tantamount to allowing a trustee to acquire title against his principal and true owner. It should be noted that the title of Lot 998 was still registered in the name of Luis Sr. even when he predeceased Juan Tong. Considering that the implied trust has been repudiated through such death, Lot 998 cannot be included in his estate except only insofar as his undivided share thereof is concerned. It is well-settled that title to property does not vest ownership but it is a mere proof that such property has been registered. And, the fact that the petitioners are in possession of all the tax receipts and tax declarations of Lot 998 all the more amplify their claim of ownership over Lot 998-A. Although these tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. Such realty tax payments constitute proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.[20] Therefore, the action for reconveyance of Lot 998-A, which forms part of Lot 998, is imprescriptible and the petitioners are not estopped from claiming ownership thereof. | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is settled that affidavits partake the nature of hearsay evidence, since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them.[51] The above rule affirms the general requirement in adversarial proceedings for the examination of the affiant by the party against whom the affidavit is offered. In the instant case, it is required for affiants to re-affirm the contents of their affidavits during the hearing of the instant case for them to be examined by the opposing party, i.e., the Union. | |||||
|
2010-01-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On the contrary, a plain reading of the provisions of the Extrajudicial Settlement would not, in any way, support petitioner's contention that it was his and his sibling's intention to buy the subject property from the Bank and continue what they believed to be co-ownership thereof. It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that the intention of the parties shall be accorded primordial consideration.[16] It is the duty of the courts to place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve.[17] Such intention is determined from the express terms of their agreement, as well as their contemporaneous and subsequent acts.[18] Absurd and illogical interpretations should also be avoided.[19] | |||||
|
2008-08-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| ownership and possession are two entirely different legal concepts. Just as possession is not a definite proof of ownership, neither is non-possession inconsistent with ownership. The first paragraph of Article 1498 of the Civil Code states that when the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred. Possession, along with ownership, is transferred to the vendee by virtue of the notarized deed of conveyance. Thus, in light of the circumstances of the present case, it is of no legal consequence that petitioner did not take actual possession or occupation of the disputed lot after the execution of the deed of sale in her favor because she was already able to perfect and complete her ownership of and title over the subject property.[46] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Suntay v. Court of Appeals,[34] the Court held that the most protuberant index of simulation is the complete absence of an attempt in any manner on the part of the vendee to assert his rights of ownership over the disputed property. This pronouncement was reiterated in such cases as Sps. Santiago v. Court of Appeals,[35] Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation,[36] Ramos v. Heirs of Honorio Ramos, Sr.,[37] Manila Banking Corporation v. Silverio,[38] and most recently in Tating v. Marcella.[39] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, Lucia religiously paid the realty taxes on the subject lot from 1980 to 1987.[46] While tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation purposes are not, in themselves, incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property,[47] particularly when accompanied by proof of actual possession.[48] They are good indicia of the possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession.[49] The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government.[50] Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[51] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, Lucia religiously paid the realty taxes on the subject lot from 1980 to 1987.[46] While tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation purposes are not, in themselves, incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property,[47] particularly when accompanied by proof of actual possession.[48] They are good indicia of the possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession.[49] The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government.[50] Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[51] | |||||