Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. CHERYL B. BIBONIA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 170757 2011-11-28	VALIAO v. REPUBLIC PERALTA, J.
As regards petitioners' possession of the land in question from 1947 to 1966, petitioners could only support the same with a tax declaration dated September 29, 1976. At best, petitioners can only prove possession since said date. What is required is open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession by petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[25] Petitioners failed to explain why, despite their claim that their predecessors-in-interest have possessed the subject properties in the concept of an owner even before June 12, 1945, it was only in 1976 that they started to declare the same for purposes of taxation. Moreover, tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. The disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for registration, or of their predecessors-in-interest, but it does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.[26]
	GR No. 172011 2011-03-07	REPUBLIC v. TEODORO P. RIZALVO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Although we would want to adhere to the State's policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and remain true to the ideal of social justice[35] we are constrained by the clear and simple requisites of the law to disallow respondent's application for registration.
	GR No. 171631 2010-11-15	REPUBLIC v. AVELINO R. DELA PAZ PERALTA, J.
Respondents' earliest evidence can be traced back to a tax declaration issued in the name of their predecessors-in-interest only in the year 1949. At best, respondents can only prove possession since said date. What is required is open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession by respondents and their predecessors-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[27] Respondents failed to explain why, despite their claim that their predecessors-in interest have possessed the subject properties in the concept of an owner even before June 12, 1945, it was only in 1949 that their predecessors-in-interest started to declare the same for purposes of taxation. Well settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. The fact that the disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.[28]
	GR No. 180067 2009-06-30	REPUBLIC v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VELASCO JR., J.
A review of subsequent and recent rulings by this Court shows that the pronouncement in Herbieto has been applied to Buenaventura v. Republic,[17] Republic v. Diloy,[18] Ponciano, Jr. v. Laguna Lake Development Authority,[19] and Preciosa v. Pascual.[20] This Court's ruling in Naguit, on the other hand, has been applied to Republic v. Bibonia.[21]
	GR No. 179987 2009-04-29	HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN v. REPUBLIC TINGA, J.
With respect to Section 14(1), petitioners reiterate that the analysis of the Court in Naguit is the correct interpretation of the provision. The seemingly contradictory pronouncement in Herbieto, it is submitted, should be considered obiter dictum, since the land registration proceedings therein was void ab initio due to lack of publication of the notice of initial hearing. Petitioners further point out that in Republic v. Bibonia,[14] promulgated in June of 2007, the Court applied Naguit and adopted the same observation that the preferred interpretation by the OSG of Section 14(1) was patently absurd. For its part, the OSG remains insistent that for Section 14(1) to apply, the land should have been classified as alienable and disposable as of 12 June 1945. Apart from Herbieto, the OSG also cites the subsequent rulings in Buenaventura v. Republic,[15] Fieldman Agricultural Trading v. Republic[16] and Republic v. Imperial Credit Corporation,[17] as well as the earlier case of Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals.[18]
	GR No. 177797 2008-12-04	SPS. PEDRO TAN AND NENA ACERO TAN v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For failure of the Spouses Tan to satisfy the requirements prescribed by Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, this Court has no other option but to deny their application for judicial confirmation and registration of their title to the subject property. Much as this Court wants to conform to the State's policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and remain true to the ideal of social justice, our hands are tied by the law's stringent safeguards against registering imperfect titles.[52]
	GR No. 158897 2007-09-13	REPUBLIC v. FREDESVINDA ALMEDA CONSUNJI AZCUNA, J.
In Connection with your request for verification of status of above noted lots dated October 6, 1999 please be informed that the subject area falls within Alienable and Disposable Proj. No. 30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas per L.C. Map 582 cert. December 25, 1925.[38] It is therefore undisputed that the subject lots have been declared as alienable and disposable by a positive government act.[39] The certification itself is sufficient to establish the true nature and character of the subject properties. Similarly, it enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.[40]
	GR No. 148373 2007-02-05	ALCO BUSINESS CORPORATION v. ELSA ABELLA AZCUNA, J.
A parcel of land (Lot No. 10, Block No. 243 of the consolidation and subdivision plan Pcs-3824,being a portion of the consolidation of Block Nos. 235 to 241, Street Lots Nos. 4 to 9 and 11 of plan Psd-36950 and Lot 4-B-3-C-2-B-2 of plan Psd-18526, LRC (GLRO) Rec. No. 7681) situated in the Quezon City. Bounded on the NW. by Lot No. 9; Block No. 243 of the consolidation and subdivision plan; on the NE., by Lot No. 12, Block No. 243 of the consolidation and subdivision plan; on the SE., by Street Lot No. 13 of the consolidation and subdivision plan and on the SW. by Lot No. 6, Block No. 243 of the consolidation and subdivision plan. Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being S. 87 deg. (02'E., 2305.00 m. from City Boundary Monument No. 37, Manila Cad; thence S. 47 deg. 40'W., 22.00 m. to point 2; thence N. 43 deg. 03'W., 49.99 m. to point 3; thence N. 46 deg. 57'E., 22.00 m. to point 4, thence S. 43 deg. 03'E; 50.27 m. to point of beginning; containing an area of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWO SQUARE METERS AND NINETY SQUARE DECIMETERS (1,102.9) more or less. All points referred to are indicated on the plan and on the ground by P.S. Cyl. Conc. mons. 15x60 cm., bearings true; decl. 0 deg. 45'E., date of original survey, Dec. 1910 to June 1911 and that of the consolidation and subdivision survey, April 5 to June 19, 1954.[11] The CA observed that both TCT No. 57466 covering Lot No. 8, Block No. 243 of the subdivision plan Pcs-3824 and TCT No. 253304 covering Lot No. 10, Block No. 243 of the consolidation and subdivision plan Pcs-3824 declare that Lots Nos. 8 and 10 are portions of the consolidation of Block Nos. 235 to 241. However, the described location of the land is Block No. 243. As pointed out by the RTC, Branch 103 of Quezon City, "how can a certificate be issued as covering Block [No.] 243 when the very same title states that the lands therein covered are those of Block Nos. 235 to 241 only?"