[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
112 views1 page

Land Ownership Dispute Resolution

Respondents filed an application for registration of title over two pieces of land, claiming they acquired the land through succession from their predecessors. They claimed to have been in actual, open, peaceful, adverse, exclusive and continuous possession of the land and had consistently declared the property for real estate tax purposes. The petitioner opposed the application, arguing the tax declarations were not sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition or prior possession as owner. The court ruled the respondents' possession through their predecessors dated back to 1937 when the land was first declared for taxes, naming their father as owner. While tax documents are not conclusive proof of ownership, they indicate possession as owner. The court found the respondents had possessed the land openly, continuously, and

Uploaded by

Kim Jan Navata Batecan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
112 views1 page

Land Ownership Dispute Resolution

Respondents filed an application for registration of title over two pieces of land, claiming they acquired the land through succession from their predecessors. They claimed to have been in actual, open, peaceful, adverse, exclusive and continuous possession of the land and had consistently declared the property for real estate tax purposes. The petitioner opposed the application, arguing the tax declarations were not sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition or prior possession as owner. The court ruled the respondents' possession through their predecessors dated back to 1937 when the land was first declared for taxes, naming their father as owner. While tax documents are not conclusive proof of ownership, they indicate possession as owner. The court found the respondents had possessed the land openly, continuously, and

Uploaded by

Kim Jan Navata Batecan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

30. Republic of the Philippines vs.

Zenaida Guinto-Aldana
G.R. No. 175578, August 11, 2010

FACTS:

Respondents filed an application for registration of title over 2 pieces of land, professing
themselves to be co-owners of these lots having acquired them by succession from their
predecessors. That until the time of the application, they and their predecessors-in-interest have
been in actual, open, peaceful, adverse, exclusive and continuous possession of these lots in the
concept of an owner and that they had consistently declared the property in their name for
purposes of real estate taxation. In support of their application, respondents submitted to the
court the pertinent tax declarations, together with the receipts of payment thereof. Petitioner
opposed the application for the reason that the tax declaration submitted to the court did not
constitute competent and sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition in good faith or of prior
possession in the concept of an owner.

ISSUE:
WON respondents have occupied and possessed the property openly, continuously, exclusively
and notoriously under a bona fide claim of ownership.

HELD:
Respondents’ possession through their predecessors-in-interest dates back to as early as
1937 when the property had already been declared for taxation by respondent’s father.
Respondents could have produced more proof of this kind had it not been for the fact that, the
relevant portions of the tax records on file with the Provincial Assessor had been burned when its
office was razed by fire in 1997. With the tax assessments therecame next tax
payments. Respondents’ receipts for tax expenditures were likewise in therecords and in these
documents the predecessors of respondents were the named owners of the property. Tax
declarations and realty tax payment are not conclusive evidence ofownership, nevertheless, they
are a good indication of possession in the concept of an owner. No one in his right mind would be
paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. Indeed,
respondents herein have been in possession of the land in the concept of an owner, open,
continuous, peaceful and without interference and opposition from the government or from any
private individual. Itself makes their right thereto unquestionably settled and hence, deserving of
protection under the law.

You might also like