This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-02-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Further, the Court notes that the tax declarations over the subject properties presented by the respondent were only for 2002. The respondent failed to explain why, despite its claim that it acquired the subject properties as early as 1989, and that its predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the subject property since 1943, it was only in 2002 that it started to declare the same for purposes of taxation. "While tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they constitute proof of claim of ownership."[41] That the subject properties were declared for taxation purposes only in 2002 gives rise to the presumption that the respondent claimed ownership or possession of the subject properties starting that year. Likewise, no improvement or plantings were declared or noted in the said tax declarations. This fact belies the claim that the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest, contrary to Cerquena's testimony, have been in possession and occupation of the subject properties in the manner required by law. | |||||
|
2012-03-20 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| It has been consistently held that the verification of a pleading is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement. The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.[21] | |||||
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The pieces of documentary evidence submitted by respondent neither show that its predecessor's possession and occupation of the subject land is for the period or duration required by law. The earliest date of the Tax Declarations presented in evidence by respondent is 1965, the others being 1973, 1980, 1992 and 1993. Respondent failed to present any credible explanation why the realty taxes due on the subject property were only paid starting in 1965. While tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they constitute proof of claim of ownership.[13] In the present case, the payment of realty taxes starting 1965 gives rise to the presumption that respondent's predecessors-in-interest claimed ownership or possession of the subject lot only in that year. | |||||