Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ISAAC MAGISTRADO v. DOROTEA ESPLANA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	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. 159494 2008-07-31	PASIÑO v. DR. TEOFILO EDUARDO F. MONTERROYO CARPIO, J.
In Magistrado v. Esplana,[16] the Court ruled that so long as there is a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession, and hence, a registrable possession, by present or previous occupants, by any proof that would be competent and admissible, the property must be considered to be private.
	GR NO. 158328 2007-02-23	FRANCO ESGUERRA v. ALFONSO MANANTAN QUISUMBING, J.
We held in Magistrado v. Esplana[14] that so long as there is a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, and hence, a registrable possession, by present or previous occupants, by any proof that would be competent and admissible, the property must be considered to be private.