This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-08-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, the tax declaration in the name of petitioner's father, TD No. 0400583 was issued only in 1994, while TD No. 0-0400469 in its own name was issued in 2000. Petitioner's predecessors-in-interest were able to submit a tax declaration only for the year 1988, which was long after both spouses Vivencio and Paulina Batucan have died. Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner.[30] And while Andrea Batucan Enriquez claimed knowledge of their family's possession since she was just ten (10) years old - although she said she was born in 1932 -- there was no clear and convincing evidence of such open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership. She never mentioned any act of occupation, development, cultivation or maintenance over the property throughout the alleged length of possession.[31] There was no account of the circumstances regarding their father's acquisition of the land, whether their father introduced any improvements or farmed the land, and if they established residence or built any house thereon. | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In contrast, respondents presented evidence which clearly preponderates in their favor. First, the transfer certificate of title, tax declarations and realty tax receipts were all in their names. Second, pursuant to the Torrens System, TCT No. RT-32498 (T-199627) enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity and is the best proof of ownership of the lot.[29] Third, although tax declarations or realty tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an 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. As we previously held, such realty tax payments constitute proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.[30] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Even in the probate proceedings instituted by the heirs of Crispulo Rojas, which included her as a daughter of the first marriage, Cañezo never contested the inclusion of the contested property in the estate of her father. She even participated in the project of partition of her father's estate which was approved by the probate court in 1984. After personally receiving her share in the proceeds of the estate for 12 years, she suddenly claims ownership of part of her father's estate in 1997. The principle of estoppel in pais applies when -- by one's acts, representations, admissions, or silence when there is a need to speak out --one, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist; and the latter rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so as to be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of those facts.[46] Such a situation obtains in the instant case. | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ. |
||||
| Trust is the legal relationship between one person who has equitable ownership of a property and another who owns the legal title to the property.[44] The trustor is the one who establishes the trust; the beneficiary, the person for whose benefit the trust was created; and the trustee, the one in whom, by conferment of a legal title, confidence has been reposed as regards the property of the beneficiary.[45] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Constructive trusts are "created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold."[37] | |||||
|
2005-08-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A resulting trust is presumed to have been contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which is to be found in the nature of their transaction but not expressed in the deed itself.[14] It is based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration, not legal title, determines the equitable title or interest.[15] | |||||
|
2005-07-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A resulting trust is presumed to have been contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which is to be found in the nature of their transaction but not expressed in the deed itself.[14] It is based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration, not legal title, determines the equitable title or interest.[15] | |||||
|
2004-12-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| As a rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals -- when not in conflict with those of the trial court -- are not disturbed by this Court,[8] to which only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari.[9] | |||||