This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-11-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We cannot tolerate this kind of approach for two basic reasons. One, in this jurisdiction, all lands belong to the State regardless of their classification.[40] This rule, more commonly known as the Regalian doctrine, applies with equal force even to private unregistered lands, unless the contrary is satisfactorily shown. Second, unless the date when the property became alienable and disposable is specifically identified, any determination on the RCAM's compliance with the second requirement is rendered useless as any alleged period of possession prior to the date the property became alienable and disposable can never be counted in its favor as any period of possession and occupation of public lands in the concept of owner, no matter how long, can never ripen into ownership.[41] | |||||
|
2013-09-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia), a legal concept first introduced into the country from the West by Spain through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas,[14] all lands of the public domain belong to the State.[15] This means that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land, and is charged with the conservation of such patrimony.[16] All lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Also, public lands remain part of the inalienable land of the public domain unless the State is shown to have reclassified or alienated them to private persons.[17] | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Under the Regalian doctrine which is embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[15] | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Finally, the fact that the public prosecutor of Tagaytay City did not contest the respondents' possession of the subject property is of no moment. The absence of opposition from government agencies is of no controlling significance because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents.[33] | |||||
|
2008-10-08 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[83] To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable.[84] There must still be a positive act declaring land of the public domain as alienable and disposable. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.[85] The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable.[86] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
|||||
| It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[27] | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, there is nothing to support the respondent's claim that the property "was reclassified as residential ... already segregated from the public domain and assumed the character of private ownership." At the moment, it is not clear as to when the proper authorities classified the subject as alienable and disposable. It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[26] | |||||
|
2004-10-04 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, before one can register his title over a parcel of land, the applicant must show that (a) he, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier; and (b) the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.[24] | |||||