This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-07-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Here, however, it was obvious that the CA did not modify or alter any of the factual findings of the CTA, but only re-assessed the findings because of the conflicting conclusions reached by the CTA and the BOC. After its re-assessment, the CA declared that the conclusions by the BOC and the Secretary of Finance were more sustainable and convincing than those of the CTA.[37] By so declaring, the CA did not change the factual findings of the CTA but only arrived at a different interpretation of the findings that tilted its appellate resolution in favor of the respondents. The CA thereby simply exercised its power of appellate review. Indeed, the CA, as the appellate court, had the authority to either affirm, or reverse, or modify the appealed decision of the CTA. To withhold from the CA its power to render an entirely new decision would trench on its power of review, and would, in effect, render it incapable of correcting the patent errors of the lower court.[38] | |||||
|
2009-08-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered thereby ceases to be part of public domain, becomes private property, and the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of such issuance. However, a title emanating from a free patent which was secured through fraud does not become indefeasible, precisely because the patent from whence the title sprung is itself void and of no effect whatsoever.[36] | |||||
|
2009-03-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the CA did not err when it partially relied on the Report of the Clerk of Court, the duly appointed hearing officer for the ocular inspection by virtue of RTC Order[34] dated November 10, 1989, upon agreement of all the parties. Petitioner did not interpose any objection to such appointment nor to the conduct of the inspection, as it is on record that petitioner's counsel participated in said inspection.[35] When the Clerk of Court made her observation that the boundaries pointed to by petitioner were within the area of respondent's property, petitioner's counsel did not object to such observation.[36] The RTC's failure to mention the Report in its Decision is of no moment. When petitioner appealed to the CA, the appealed case was thereby thrown wide open for review by the CA. Given this power, the CA has the authority to either affirm, reverse or modify the appealed decision of the trial court,[37] because, unlike this Court, the CA has the power to review factual matters. The Report forms part of the records of this case which must have been taken into consideration by the CA in its resolution of the case filed before it. | |||||
|
2007-08-15 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| As early as 1999, this Court in Baguio v. Republic laid down the jurisprudence that: It is true that, once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered by them ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property, and the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance of such patent.[78] The doctrine was reiterated in Republic v. Heirs of Felipe Alijaga, Sr.,[79] Heirs of Carlos Alcaraz v. Republic,[80] and the more recent case of Doris Chiongbian-Oliva v. Republic of the Philippines.[81] Thus, the 79-hectare reclaimed land became patrimonial property after the issuance of certificates of titles to the NHA based on Special Patents Nos. 3592 and 3598. | |||||