Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Republic v. Dela Paz

    Загружено:

    Steven Ave
    19 просмотров1 страница
    This case involves an application for land registration filed by Dela Paz and co. under the Public Land Act. The Republic opposed the application, arguing that the land was public domain and neither Dela Paz nor their predecessors had occupied or possessed the land since 1945. While the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Dela Paz, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that Dela Paz failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the land was alienable and disposable, such as a certification from the appropriate government agency classifying the land as such or evidence of continuous occupation since 1945. The Court held that a surveyor's annotation and tax declarations were insufficient to prove ownership or that the land was alienable, and

    Исходное описание:

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    This case involves an application for land registration filed by Dela Paz and co. under the Public Land Act. The Republic opposed the application, arguing that the land was public domain and neither Dela Paz nor their predecessors had occupied or possessed the land since 1945. While the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Dela Paz, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that Dela Paz failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the land was alienable and disposable, such as a certification from the appropriate government agency classifying the land as such or evidence of continuous occupation since 1945. The Court held that a surveyor's annotation and tax declarations were insufficient to prove ownership or that the land was alienable, and

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    19 просмотров1 страница

    Republic v. Dela Paz

    Загружено:

    Steven Ave
    This case involves an application for land registration filed by Dela Paz and co. under the Public Land Act. The Republic opposed the application, arguing that the land was public domain and neither Dela Paz nor their predecessors had occupied or possessed the land since 1945. While the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Dela Paz, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that Dela Paz failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the land was alienable and disposable, such as a certification from the appropriate government agency classifying the land as such or evidence of continuous occupation since 1945. The Court held that a surveyor's annotation and tax declarations were insufficient to prove ownership or that the land was alienable, and

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 1

    REPUBLIC v.

    DELA PAZ

    FACTS

    1. Nov. 13, 2003 – Dela Paz and co. filed an application for reg. of land under PD 1529 in RTC Pasig
    a. 25,825 sq.m. situated at Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, MM.
    b. Presented Conversion Consolidated Plan, Cadastral Mapping w/ annotation by geodetic
    engr. that land is A and D by Bureau of Forest Devt.,
    c. OCEN daw since 1987, nya ila predecessors in interest before 1945 pa daw (>50 yrs)
    2. Republic opposed:
    a. Neither them nor their predecessors in interest have been in OCEN
    b. Tax dec, etc, not sufficient evidence
    c. Dela Paz and co. failed to show actual of constructive possession and occupation in the
    conept of an owner
    d. Public domain ang land
    3. RTC granted the application
    4. CA affirmed:
    a. Dela Paz and co. were able to prove OCEN, evidence is sufficient nga di Public Domain

    ISSUE

    WON the application should be granted

    HELD

    NO

    1. PROOF REQUIRED: CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE NGA A AND D AND LAND.
    2. surveyor's annotation presented by respondents is not the kind of proof required by law to
    prove that the subject land falls within the alienable and disposable zone
    a. Republic v. Sarmiento og Republic vs. Tri-plus Corp:
    i. Notation of surveyor that land is A and D is not sufficient
    3. Di pod pwede 14(1) kay way na prove nga occupation og possession since 1945 (earliest tax dec
    kay 1949)
    a. Ang mga testimony sa witnesses kay general statements ra
    4. Applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the govt. such as Pres. Proc. And EO or
    Admin action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, or law.
    a. Wa ka submit silang Dela Paz og certification from CENRO or PENRO approved by Sec. of
    DENR
    5. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to prove that the subject property is already
    classified as alienable and disposable, we must consider the same as still inalienable public
    domain.
    6. Tax dec merele indicia of a claim of ownership. Not conclusive evidence to prove ownership

    Вам также может понравиться