This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-03-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties' alienable and disposable character.[25] These notations, at the very least, only establish that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved alienable and disposable area per verification through survey by the proper government office. The applicant, however, must also present a copy of the original classification of the land into alienable and disposable land, as declared by the DENR Secretary or as proclaimed by the President.[26] In Republic v. Heirs of Juan Fabio,[27] the Court ruled that | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Under the Regalian doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.[13] Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.[14] The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable.[15] | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, which embodies the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State - the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.[13] All lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumptively belong to the State.[14] Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable and disposable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.[15] Incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[16] | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.[16] The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.[17] | |||||
|
2011-01-17 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed; they call for proof.[14] To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as any of the following: a presidential proclamation or an executive order; other administrative actions; investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator; or a legislative act or statute.[15] The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.[16] | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Under the Regalian doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the inalienable public domain.[14] The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable.[15] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for the notation on the subdivision plan of the lot stating that "the survey is inside alienable and disposable area,"[19] the same does not constitute proof that the lot is alienable and disposable. So Republic v. Tri-Plus Corporation[20] instructs: In the present case, the only evidence to prove the character of the subject lands as required by law is the notation appearing in the Advance Plan stating in effect that the said properties are alienable and disposable. However, this is hardly the kind of proof required by law. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute. The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable. In the case at bar, while the Advance Plan bearing the notation was certified by the Lands Management Services of the DENR, the certification refers only to the technical correctness of the survey plotted in the said plan and has nothing to do whatsoever with the nature and character of the property surveyed.[21] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Respondent cites[22] the rulings of the Court of Appeals in Guido Sinsuat v. Director of Lands, et al. and Raymundo v. Bureau of Forestry and Diaz which she quoted in her petition, albeit inaccurately. The rulings in said cases are correctly quoted below: x x x x | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Under the Regalian doctrine embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. Therefore, all lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the alienable public domain.[30] | |||||