Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCO v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 171804 2015-08-05	REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. OSCAR ANGLO LEONEN, J.
Under the Land Registration Act, title to the property covered by a Torrens title becomes indefeasible after the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree of registration. The decree is incontrovertible and becomes binding on all persons whether or not they were notified of, or participated in, the in rem registration process. . . A Torrens title is the best evidence of ownership of registered land.[75] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
	GR No. 181459 2014-06-09	CIR v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY PERALTA, J.
Second, in the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts, petitioner admitted the issuance of the aforesaid BIR Ruling and did not contest it as one of the admitted documentary evidence in Court. A judicial admission binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it.[29] In Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation,[30] we sustained the judicial admission of petitioner's counsel for failure to prove the existence of palpable mistake, thus: x x x. A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
	GR No. 163530 2011-03-09	PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. RAMON VALENZUELA PERALTA, J.
While the abovequoted section, among other things, authorizes a person in interest to ask the court for any erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title or of any memorandum appearing therein, the prevailing rule is that proceedings thereunder are summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of mistakes which are only clerical but certainly not controversial issues.[13] Relief under the said legal provision can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest.[14]
	GR No. 159665 2010-08-03	ANSELMO TAGHOY v. SPS. FELIXBERTO TIGOL BRION, J.
The joint affidavits are very solid pieces of evidence in the petitioners' favor. They constitute admissions against interest made by the respondents under oath. An admission against interest is the best evidence that affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute,[37] based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.[38] It is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not.[39]
	GR No. 166886 2008-07-30	MATTEL v. EMMA FRANCISCO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
x x x x[21] Uy's admission in his Comment and Memorandum of non-compliance with the foregoing requirements is a judicial admission and an admission against interest[22] combined. A judicial admission binds the person who makes the same.[23] In the same vein, an admission against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.[24] The rationale for the rule is based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.[25] Thus, it is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not.[26]
	GR NO. 155208 2007-03-27	NENA LAZALITA TATING v. FELICIDAD MARCELLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Suntay v. Court of Appeals,[29] the Court ruled that the most protuberant index of simulation is the complete absence, on the part of the vendee, of any attempt in any manner to assert his rights of ownership over the disputed property.[30] In the present case, however, the evidence clearly shows that petitioner declared the property for taxation and paid realty taxes on it in her name. Petitioner has shown that from 1972 to 1988 she religiously paid the real estate taxes due on the said lot and that it was only in 1974 and 1987 that she failed to pay the taxes thereon. While tax receipts and declarations and 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.[31] 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.[32] Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[33] On the other hand, private respondents failed to present even a single tax receipt or declaration showing that Daniela paid taxes due on the disputed lot as proof that she claims ownership thereof. The only Tax Declaration in the name of Daniela, which private respondents presented in evidence, refers only to the house standing on the lot in controversy.[34] Even the said Tax Declaration contains a notation that herein petitioner owns the lot (Lot 56) upon which said house was built.
	GR NO. 172401 2006-10-30	CARLOS G. AZUL v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner admitted that he allowed his ID and password to be used in the "kiting" operations. This admission is evidence of the highest order and does not require further proof. It binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it.[10] Thus, as correctly found by the Court of Appeals, the following admissions in petitioner's affidavit showed the indispensability of his participation in the prohibited transactions, to wit: 6) x x x The check presented by the favored client-depositor is validated as "check deposit"; The branch manager or any of the bank officers will "release" or waive the "float days" of the check (the "float days" refer to the period of days within which a check is cleared for withdrawal by the drawee bank through the Central bank clearing house - for Manila checks, the "float days" is seven days, while Naga or local checks it is three days. The act of "releasing" the float days is by encoding into the computer the password, and the float days would be reduced into "0" day instead of reflecting the actual number of days for clearing. The encoding may only be done by two bank officers by inputting "over-ride 1" and "over-ride 2". Once the release of float days is done, the amount of the check deposited is ready for withdrawal by the process mentioned in letter (g) of the preceding paragraph.