This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In order that an action for the recovery of title may prosper, it is indispensable, in accordance with the precedents established by the courts, that the party who prosecutes it must fully prove, not only his ownership of the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same.[9] However, although the identity of the thing that a party desires to recover must be established, if the plaintiff has already proved his right of ownership over a tract of land, and the defendant is occupying without right any part of such tract, it is not necessary for plaintiff to establish the precise location and extent of the portions occupied by the defendant within the plaintiff's property.[10] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Worth mentioning is the provision of Article 434 of the Civil Code which ordains that "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." Hence, in order that an action for the recovery of property may prosper, it is indispensable that the party who prosecutes it must fully prove, not only his ownership of the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same.[10] As we see it, the evidence presented in this case showed that the property subject of the dispute rightfully belongs to the respondents, as it was established that the same is part of the parcel of land declared under the name of respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Dionisio Leonen. Indeed, the verification survey of the contested property conducted by Juvenal Quitoriano, a geodetic engineer, revealed that it was in the name of Dionisio Leonen. Too, the identity of the disputed strip of land has been proven in a conclusive manner as its location corresponds with those given by the witnesses and the record of the ocular inspection. The cadastral survey of the property clearly identifies and delineates the extent of the subject land. As the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the present creek is still the same creek which bounds their property on the west, the respondents have the right to recover possession of the disputed strip of land. | |||||
|
2004-12-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The subsequent entry of petitioners and their occupation of the property in question was in bad faith,[27] given the prior possession thereof by private respondents. Thus, when the former were ordered by the RTC to remove whatever improvements they might have introduced thereon, the court committed no error.[28] | |||||