Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. RUBY LEE TSAI

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 185092 2014-06-04	REPUBLIC v. CORAZON C. SESE MENDOZA, J.
With regard to the third requisite, it must be shown that the possession and occupation of a parcel of land by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, started on June 12, 1945 or earlier.[17] A mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more, by itself, is not sufficient.[18]
	GR No. 163767 2014-03-10	REPUBLIC v. ROSARIO DE GUZMAN VDA. DE JOSON BERSAMIN, J.
In Republic vs. Tsai,[25] the Court summarizes the amendments that have shaped the current phraseology of Section 14(1), to wit: Through the years, Section 48(b) of the CA 141 has been amended several times. The Court of Appeals failed to consider the amendment introduced by PD 1073. In Republic v. Doldol, the Court provided a summary of these amendments:
	GR No. 174626 2013-10-23	REPUBLIC v. LUIS MIGUEL O. ABOITIZ MENDOZA, J.
With regard to the third requisite, it must be shown that the possession and occupation of a parcel of land by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, started on June 12, 1945 or earlier.[19] A mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more, by itself, is not sufficient.[20]
	GR No. 172102 2010-07-02	REPUBLIC v. HANOVER WORLWIDE TRADING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
As the law now stands, a mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more is not sufficient. Therefore, since the effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25, 1977, it must now be shown that possession and occupation of the piece of land by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, started on June 12, 1945 or earlier. This provision is in total conformity with Section 14 (1) of P.D. 1529.[9]