Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RENE GANILA v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 179874 2015-06-22	ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA PERALTA, J.
It is also noteworthy that petitioners failed to dispute that Maria had been in actual, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the subject property since her birth on April 23, 1929, long before it was sold to her by Servillano by virtue of the Deeds of Absolute Sale executed on May 25, 1971 and on November 24, 1977. On September 6, 1973, she declared it in her name for taxation purposes under Tax Dec. No. 4826.[87] On October 27, 1978, TCT No. T-15364 in the name of Servillano was cancelled and TCT No. T-15365[88] was issued and registered in her name. She also religiously paid the taxes thereon from 1985 until 2001 as evidenced by real property tax receipts.[89] It is a settled rule that albeit tax declarations and realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless 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.[90] Thus, her voluntary declaration of the subject property for taxation purposes and payment of such tax strengthens her bona fide claim of title over the property.
	GR No. 176341 2014-07-07	PRO-GUARD SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION v. TORMIL REALTY DEL CASTILLO, J.
"In unlawful detainer cases, the defendant is necessarily in prior lawful possession of the property but his possession eventually becomes unlawful upon termination or expiration of his right to possess."[27] In other words, the entry is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal. Additionally, the Rules of Court requires the filing of such action within a year after the withholding of possession,[28] meaning that "if the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, [then] an ejectment proceeding (in this case unlawful detainer) is proper x x x."[29]
	GR No. 180269 2013-02-20	JOSE Z. CASILANG v. ROSARIO Z. CASILANG-DIZON REYES, J.
It is apropos, then, to note that in contrast to Civil Case No. 847, which is an ejectment case, Civil Case No. 98-02371-D is for "Annulment of Documents, Ownership and Peaceful Possession;" it is an accion reinvindicatoria, or action to recover ownership, which necessarily includes recovery of possession[34] as an incident thereof. Jose asserts his ownership over Lot No. 4618 under a partition agreement with his co-heirs, and seeks to invalidate Ireneo's "claim" over Lot No. 4618 and to declare TD No. 555 void, and consequently, to annul the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim executed by Ireneo's heirs.
	GR No. 158877 2009-06-16	JOVEN DE GRANO v. GREGORIO LACABA NACHURA, J.
Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proof of possession.[33] They are merely good indicia of possession in the concept of owner based on the presumption that no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.[34] It bears emphasizing that the word "possession," as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing more than physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.[35] When the law speaks of possession, the reference is to prior physical possession or possession de facto, as contra-distinguished from possession de jure.[36] Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue.[37] Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[38]
	GR No. 154953 2008-06-26	REPUBLIC V.S. T.A.N. PROPERTIES, INC. CARPIO, J.
The tax declarations presented were only for the years starting 1955. While tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they constitute proof of claim of ownership.[34] Respondent did not present any credible explanation why the realty taxes were only paid starting 1955 considering the claim that the Dimayugas were allegedly in possession of the land before 1945. The payment of the realty taxes starting 1955 gives rise to the presumption that the Dimayugas claimed ownership or possession of the land only in that year.
	GR No. 163254 2007-06-01	REPUBLIC v. ALBINA STA. ANA-BURGOS TINGA, J.
Respondent presented duly certified photocopies of the tax declarations covering the years 1945-1994 all of which are in her name or in the name of her predecessor-in-interest. She also submitted the receipt evidencing payment of real estate taxes for 1999 and a tax clearance dated January 13, 1999, issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Taytay, Rizal, showing payment of realty taxes on the property.[7] While not a conclusive evidence of ownership, the tax declarations presented by respondent constitute proof that she has a claim of title over the lot. In Ganila v. Court of Appeals,[8] we held that:Although tax declarations or realty tax payment 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. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. 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. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
	GR NO. 140798 2006-09-19	MARCELITO D. QUEVADA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Petitioner should not trifle with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting someone else's ownership over the leased property.[31] The proceedings are "only intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. Title is not involved."[32] In fact, the absence of title is not a ground "to withhold relief from the parties x x x."[33] "It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable x x x."[34] "[N]o questions can be raised or decided incidentally tending to defeat the title or right of possession evidenced by the documents introduced"[35] by petitioner.
	GR NO. 161739 2006-05-04	ALFREDO BOKINGO v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action (accion reinvindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de facto. An unlawful detainer suit (accion interdictal) together with forcible entry are the two forms of an ejectment suit that may be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.[15]
	GR NO. 168237 2006-02-22	THELMA BUDUHAN v. CURSON PAKURAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On the other hand, petitioner tacks her claim of prior possession to that of her grandfather, Fianinan Machimlang, who paid the taxes on the property and declared it for tax purposes since 1952. While not a conclusive evidence of ownership, the tax declaration of petitioner's predecessor-in-interest constitutes proof that she has a claim of title over the lot. In Ganila v. Court of Appeals,[27] we held that:Although tax declarations or realty tax payment 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. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. 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. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.