Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO SANTIAGO v. HEIRS OF MARIANO E. SANTIAGO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 163504 2015-08-05	BERLINDA ORIBELLO v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioner insists that the complaint for partition must be dismissed based on her allegations that the adoption decree issued by the CFI, Branch II, of Occidental Mindoro was void; and that her attack against the adoption decree was akin to the counterclaim allowed in Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago,[14] an action for the nullification of a certificate of title, because the counterclaim constituted a direct attack on the title.
	GR No. 161380 2014-04-21	AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY v. SPS. JOSE AND MAGDALENA YBAÑEZ BERSAMIN, J.
In contrast, Aznar Brothers acquired Lot No. 18563 as the private land of Casimiro. In their Deed of Absolute Sale of March 21, 1964, Casimiro expressly warranted that the land was his "own exclusive property."[55] With the ownership of Aznar Brothers being thus established, the free patent issued to Jose R. Ybañez by the Government was invalid for the reason that the Government had no authority to dispose of land already in private ownership.[56] The invalidity of the free patent necessarily left OCT No. 2150 a patent nullity. As ruled in Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago:[57]
	GR No. 163125 2012-04-18	JOSE ABELGAS v. SERVILLANO COMIA SERENO, J.
In support of the fact that the alienation transpired prior to the grant of a free patent, it is remarkable that Comia never contested that the spouses had been in actual possession of the subject portion even before his patent application. The private ownership of land as when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered possessory information or a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land.[36]
	GR No. 163566 2008-02-19	RAYMUNDO and PERLA DE GUZMAN v. PRAXIDES J. AGBAGALA CORONA, J.
The settled rule is that a free patent issued over a private land is null and void, and produces no legal effects whatsoever. Private ownership of land â€• as when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered possessory information or a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, by present or previous occupants â€• is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land, because the Public Land law applies only to lands of the public domain. The Director of Lands has no authority to grant free patent to lands that have ceased to be public in character and have passed to private ownership. Consequently, a certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued in a judicial proceeding only if the land covered by it is really a part of the disposable land of the public domain.[29]
	GR NO. 166865 2007-03-02	ANGELITA F. BUENAVENTURA v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners presented as evidence their tax declarations covering the years from 1948 until the third quarter of 2001. They also offered in evidence a certification[30] from the Office of the Treasurer of the City of Parañaque to prove that realty taxes over the subject property had been duly paid by petitioners. As a rule, 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, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. 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. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[31]
	GR NO. 158328 2007-02-23	FRANCO ESGUERRA v. ALFONSO MANANTAN QUISUMBING, J.
There is also no merit in petitioner's contention that the action for annulment of title had prescribed. The one-year prescriptive period does not apply when the person seeking annulment of title is in possession of the lot. This is because the action partakes of a suit to quiet title which is imprescriptible.[13] In this case, inasmuch as respondents are in possession of the lot, their action to annul OCT No. P-15176 is not barred by prescription.
	GR NOS. 162335 & 162605 2005-12-12	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The settled rule is a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack.[47] A certificate of title may only be altered, modified or cancelled in a direct proceeding.[48] Section 48 of PD 1529 provides:Section 48. Certificate not Subject to Collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. (Emphasis supplied) To allow the cancellation of Manotok, et al.'s title in an administrative reconstitution proceeding will permit an indirect attack on the certificate of title in violation of Section 48 of PD 1529.
	GR NO. 132161 2005-01-17	CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK v. CA TINGA, J.
Moreover, as this Court declared in the case of Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago,[70] tax declarations "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 constructive possession."[71]
	GR No. 155080 2004-02-05	SOLEDAD CALICDAN v. SILVERIO CENDAÑA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The records show that the subject land is an unregistered land. When the petitioner filed the instant case on June 29, 1992, respondent was in possession of the land for 45 years counted from the time of the donation in 1947. This is more than the required 30 years of uninterrupted adverse possession without just title and good faith. Such possession was public, adverse and in the concept of an owner. Respondent fenced the land and built his house in 1949, with the help of Guadalupe's father as his contractor. His act of cultivating and reaping the fruits of the land was manifest and visible to all. He declared the land for taxation purposes and religiously paid the realty taxes thereon.[17] Together with his actual possession of the land, these tax declarations constitute strong evidence of ownership of the land occupied by him. As we said in the case of Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano Santiago:[18]