This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-12-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The dissent is hard-pressed in defending the so-called 19 April 1917 OCT from which the Dimson and CLT titles are sourced. As earlier mentioned, the focus is instead placed on the purported flaws of the titles held by the Manotoks and Araneta notwithstanding that said parties swere the defendants before the lower court and, therefore, the burden of proof did not lie on them. The established legal principle in actions for annulment or reconveyance of title is that a party seeking it should establish not merely by a preponderance of evidence but by clear and convincing evidence that the land sought to be reconveyed is his.[63] In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.[64] | |||||