This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-11-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| First, the tax declarations issued in the RCAM's name in 1948, 1966, 1977, 1984, 1990, 1993 and 1999 did not in any way prove the character of its possession over the property. Note that the settled rule is that tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence showing actual, public and adverse possession.[33] The declaration for taxation purposes of property in the names of applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest may constitute collaborating evidence only when coupled with other acts of possession and ownership;[34] standing alone, it is inconclusive. | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Atty. Elias: And for the guidance of this Court, who is the present tenant, if any, on this property, is there any tenant? Daniel Jr.: Now, no more, sir. Atty. Elias: Since when? Daniel Jr.: Because it (sic) always submerged in the water, if it rains real hard, it's under water, sir. Atty. Elias: But you mentioned a while ago that there's somebody in the name of Reyes attended to it? Daniel Jr.: Yes, attended to it. Atty. Elias: Would you know the agreement relative to the fielding of the land? Daniel Jr.: Some sort of so much will go to them and some go to my parents, mas malaki sa kanila.[61] A person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence, that is, he must prove his title and should not rely on the absence or weakness of the evidence of the oppositors.[62] Evidently, Belmonte's witnesses were not able to give a concrete, consistent and credible picture of how she exercised dominion or exercised control over the subject properties. | |||||
|
2012-02-20 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The phrase "adverse, continuous, open, public, and in concept of owner," by which the respondent describes its possession and that of its predecessors-in-interest is a conclusion of law. The burden of proof is on the respondent to prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that the alleged possession of its predecessors-in-interest was of the nature and duration required by law.[29] It is therefore inconsequential if the petitioner failed to present evidence that would controvert the allegations of the respondent. A person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., he must prove his title and should not rely on the absence or weakness of the evidence of the oppositors.[30] | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| No such evidence was offered by the petitioners to show that the land in question has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to prove that the subject property is already classified as alienable and disposable, we must consider the same as still inalienable public domain.[17] Verily, the rules on the confirmation of imperfect title do not apply unless and until the land subject thereof is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain. | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The applicant for registration under Section 14, paragraph (1)[97] of P.D. No. 1529 must specifically prove: (1) possession of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier; and (2) the classification of the land as an alienable and disposable land of the public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration. The applicant must show that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[98] | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We have held that the bare claim of the applicant that the land applied for had been in the possession of her predecessor-in-interest for 30 years does not constitute the "well-nigh inconvertible" and "conclusive" evidence required in land registration.[32] | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We have held that a person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., he must prove his title and should not rely on the absence or weakness of the evidence of the oppositors.[23] Furthermore, the court has the bounden duty, even in the absence of any opposition, to require the petitioner to show, by a preponderance of evidence and by positive and absolute proof, so far as possible, that he is the owner in fee simple of the lands which he is attempting to register.[24] Since petitioner failed to meet the quantum of proof required by law, the CA was correct in reversing the trial court and dismissing his application for judicial confirmation of title. | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the surveyor's annotation presented by respondents is not the kind of proof required by law to prove that the subject land falls within the alienable and disposable zone. Respondents failed to submit a certification from the proper government agency to establish that the subject land are part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to prove that the subject property is already classified as alienable and disposable, we must consider the same as still inalienable public domain.[20] | |||||