Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF FLORES RESTAR NAMELY: ESMENIA R. RESTAR v. HEIRS OF DOLORES R. CICHON

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 201061 2013-07-03	SALLY GO-BANGAYAN v. BENJAMIN BANGAYAN CARPIO, J.
As regards the seven remaining properties, we rule that the decision of the Court of Appeals is more in accord with the evidence on record. Only the property covered by TCT No. 61722 was registered in the names of Benjamin and Sally as spouses.[26] The properties under TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860 were in the name of Benjamin[27] with the descriptive title "married to Sally." The property covered by CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783 were registered in the name of Sally[28] with the descriptive title "married to Benjamin" while the properties under TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681 were registered in the name of Sally as a single individual. We have ruled that the words "married to" preceding the name of a spouse are merely descriptive of the civil status of the registered owner.[29] Such words do not prove co-ownership. Without proof of actual contribution from either or both spouses, there can be no co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code.[30]
	GR No. 175763 2012-04-11	HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO v. SALOME E. GABRIEL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Such character and length of possession of a party over a parcel of land subject of controversy is a factual issue. Settled is the rule that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as only questions of law shall be raised in such petitions. While this Court is not a trier of facts, if the inference drawn by the appellate court from the facts is manifestly mistaken, it may, in the interest of justice, review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct factual conclusions based on the record.[38]
	GR No. 158929 2010-08-03	ROSARIO P. TAN v. ARTEMIO G. RAMIREZ BRION, J.
This Court is not a trier of facts. However, if the inference drawn by the appellate court from the facts is manifestly mistaken, as in the present case, we can review the evidence to allow us to arrive at the correct factual conclusions based on the record.[20]
	GR No. 177947 2008-11-26	SPS. GABRIEL LLANES AND MARIA LLANES v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In addition, generations of Gabriel's family have declared the subject property under their names and paid real property taxes thereon. The earliest tax declaration was in the name of Eugenia, issued as early as 1948. While tax declarations and receipts are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[46] 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.[47] Moreover, while tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership and do not prove title to the land, nevertheless, when coupled with actual possession, they constitute evidence of great weight and can be the basis of a claim of ownership through prescription.[48]
	GR No. 148788 2007-11-23	SOLEDAD CAÑEZO v. CONCEPCION ROJAS NACHURA, J.
In light of the disquisitions, we hold that there was no express trust or resulting trust established between the petitioner and her father. Thus, in the absence of a trust relation, we can only conclude that Crispulo's uninterrupted possession of the subject property for 49 years, coupled with the performance of acts of ownership, such as payment of real estate taxes, ripened into ownership. The statutory period of prescription commences when a person who has neither title nor good faith, secures a tax declaration in his name and may, therefore, be said to have adversely claimed ownership of the lot.[38] While tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership and do not prove title to the land, nevertheless, when coupled with actual possession, they constitute evidence of great weight and can be the basis of a claim of ownership through prescription.[39] Moreover, Section 41 of Act No. 190 allows adverse possession in any character to ripen into ownership after the lapse of ten years. There could be prescription under the said section even in the absence of good faith and just title.[40]
	GR NO. 166865 2007-03-02	ANGELITA F. BUENAVENTURA v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the same breath, it cannot be gainsaid that petitioners have been in actual possession of the subject property since 1968, at the latest. According to the testimony of their witnesses, parts of the subject property are planted with bananas and some vegetables, and a bamboo grove. The other parts of the subject property were used as a fishpond, as well as devoted to salt making until 1990.[32] However, when the property was no longer suitable for agricultural purposes, for fishpond, and for salt making because of its conversion to non-agricultural purposes consistent with the zonal development of the area, the petitioners backfilled the subject property with gravel and sand, for which they paid their farm helpers just compensation. Thereafter, they enclosed the property with perimeter fence, installed guards and a caretaker to prevent potential squatters from penetrating the area.[33] When tax declarations and receipts are coupled with actual possession, they constitute evidence of great weight and can be the basis of a claim of ownership through prescription.[34]
	GR NO. 169898 2006-10-27	SPS. ANITA AND HONORIO AGUIRRE v. HEIRS OF LUCAS VILLANUEVA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This Court is not a trier of facts. However, if the inference drawn by the appellate court from the facts is manifestly mistaken, as in the instant case, we can review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct factual conclusions based on the record.[8]
	GR NO. 153625 2006-07-31	HEIRS OF MARCELINO CABAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the present case, the evidence presented during the trial proceedings in the MTC were sorely insufficient to prove that acquisitive prescription has set in with regards to the disputed lot. The tax declaration[53] and receipts[54] presented in evidence factually established only that Marcelino had been religiously paying realty taxes on Lot G-1. Tax declarations and receipts can only be the basis of a claim of ownership through prescription when coupled with proof of actual possession.[55] Evidently, Marcelino declared and paid realty taxes on property which he did not actually possess as he took possession of a lot eventually identified as the southernmost portion of Lot 1-E of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-307100.