This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Section 101. All actions for the reversion to the government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Thus, in Garingan v. Garingan,[12] the Court held that only the State may file a case for cancellation of title due to the grantee's violation of the conditions imposed by law:A certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued in a judicial proceeding, as long as the land disposed of is really a part of the disposable land of the public domain and becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year from issuance. x x x. The only instance when a certificate of title covering a tract of land, formerly a part of the patrimonial property of the State, could be cancelled, is for failure on the part of the grantee to comply with the conditions imposed by law, and in such case the proper party to bring the action would be the Government to which the property would revert.[13] Petitioners, however, argue that although it is only the government that may institute reversion proceedings, they as persons whose rights are affected by the assailed sale may pray for the declaration of nullity of the sale. | |||||
|
2006-09-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Second. The petition makes specious allegations of "grave abuse of discretion" but questions the credibility of witnesses and the authenticity of documents that were either presented during the trial of the case before the Shari'a Circuit Court or submitted for the first time before this Court. In short, petitioner seeks the review of the factual findings of the courts below. Admittedly, the Court has, in previous cases, reviewed the factual findings of the Shari'a District Court.[45] However, the petitioners in these cases came before this Court via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not an original action for certiorari as in the present case. | |||||
|
2006-03-28 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In the case of public land grants or patents, the one-year period commences from the issuance of the patent by the government.[29] | |||||