Director, Land Management Bureau vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112567, February 7, 2000 (381 Phil. 761)

“failure to prove possession according to the manner and no. of years required by law”

Facts:

Respondent Aquilino Cariño filed a petition for registration for Lot 6 which is a sugar land claimed to be owned by his mother of whom after she died he became the administrator of the property in behalf of his brothers and sisters. By virtue of a deed of extrajudicial settlement, he became the sole owner of the property. Report from the land investigator showed that the lot is agricultural in nature. Respondent claims that the improvements introduced were in the form of bamboo clumps, sugarcane and mango trees with the house of the tenant; that the land is free from claim and conflict and is not covered by existing public land application and no patent or title has been issued to it; that the respondent is on continuous, open and exclusive possession of the land as inherited from his deceased mother. Respondent is the sole witness for his petition and the only oppositor is the Bureau of Lands. The court granted the petition of the respondent. The petitioner filed a review for certiorari contending that the respondent failed to submit proof of his fee simple title and has not overthrown the presumption that the land is a portion of the public domain belonging to the state.

Republic vs. Maria Lee and IAC, G.R. No. 64818, May 13, 1991 (197 SCRA)

“failure to prove bonafide claim to land through tacking possession from predecessor-in –interest to meet requirements provided by law”

Facts:

Respondent filed before the RTC a registration of a parcel of land in her favor which was opposed by the Dir. Of Lands on grounds that respondent or her predecessor-in-interest acquired the land under any recognized mode for acquisition of title; they have not been in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner for at least 30 years prior to the filing of application and the land in dispute is a public domain belonging to Republic of the Philippines. The court rendered judgment in favor of respondents. Upon appeal by RP, it affirmed the lower court decision thus this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Republic of the Phil. contends that respondent failed to prove by conclusive evidence that she has ownership of the land by fee simple title and her testimony as to the ownership of her predecessor-in-interest is self serving after claiming that she obtained her Deed of Sale of the property from Laureana Mataban and Sixto Espiritu who obtained their title from the previous owners of the land, Urbano Diaz and Bernarda Vinluan. From the time of filing the application of registration, the respondent was in possession of the land for 13 years but she sought to tack her possession on the said land from her predecessor-in-interests who were in possession of the land for 20 years. Conditions provided by Sec. 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 where one is under a bonafide claim of acquisition of ownership through their predecessor-in-interest or by themselves have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the agricultural land in public domain for 30 years shall be entitled to a certificate of title.

Mariano Turquesa vs. Rosario Valera & Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 76371, January 20, 2000 (379 Phil. 618)

"What defines a piece of land is not the size/area mentioned in its descriptions but the boundaries laid down as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. "

Facts:

Respondent applied for registration of 2 parcels of land referred to as Lot 1 and Lot 2. She alleged to have bought Lot 1 and declared it in her name for taxation purposes. Notice for the application for registration was published in the Official Gazette. Oppositors were the Director of Bureau of Lands and herein petitioners. The opposition of Bureau of Lands was denied for failure to substantiate his claim that the land is part of the public domain. Other petitioners claim that their lands were included in Lot 1 sought to be registered by the respondent. The lower court decided in favor of the respondent and denied petitioner’s motion for ocular inspection of the land in dispute. Oppositors appealed to CA regarding Lot 1. CA remanded the case to the lower court for ocular inspection. 3 Commissioners were appointed for the ocular inspection but their findings were opposed and a second ocular inspection was ordered. The trial court reiterated its former judgment to register the whole are of Lot 1 to the respondent with its encumbrance to PNB in the amount of P1,000 removed as it was already paid and thus no longer annotated on the title. The oppositors appealed with the argument that their properties were erroneously included in the respondent’s land registration. CA modified the land registration on lot 1 excluding the landholdings of the oppositors.

Respondent filed a suit for a writ of possession over 2 lots occupied by Santiago Partolan and Crispin Baltar which the court denied. Upon appeal, the CA reversed the court decision and granted the motion for writ of possession on the landholdings of Partolan,  Baltar and oppositors who did not appeal the decision of the lower court while excluding the landholdings of Segundina and Damasen who proved they have rightful and registrable rights over their claim on a specific portion of land. Thus, the oppositors filed a motion for review.

Fausta Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-35787, April 11, 1980 (97 SCRA 22)

Facts:

This is a petition for review filed by the petitioner on the decision rendered by the CA reversing the CFI judgment in favor of her on a land registration case and orders the issuance of the Original Cert. of Title to the respondents Alejandro Santos and Ramona Francisco instead. Petitioner alleges that she is the absolute owner of the land in dispute covered with an Original Cert. of title of the Register of Deeds; that she is in continuous, adverse, open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the land since time immemorial; respondents have never been in possession of the land as they claim and that they obtained their Decree of Registration of said land by fraud. Apparently, Diego Francisco, the petitioner’s father occupied the land in dispute since 1918 and obtained a homestead patent for it. He introduced some improvements on the land such as fencing the area with barbwires, planting mango trees and palays and pasturing carabaos. He was able to secure a title in favor of his children petitioner included for the big parcel of land he cultivates and improves and when he died in 1941 the petitioner continued to possess the land in question not embraced in the Transfer of Cert. of Title issued to them in the concept of an owner.

Jason Ivler y Aguilar v Peralta Abad et al GR No. 172716, Nov. 17, 2010

Facts:

Petitioner Ivler was charged before the MTC for two separate offenses: Reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries (Criminal Case No. 82367) and reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage of property (Criminal Case No. 82366). The first offense for the injuries suffered by herein respondent and the second offense for the death of her husband and damage to the spouse’s vehicle. Ivler pleaded guilty on the first offense and meted public censure as penalty. He invokes this conviction as a ground in his motion to quash the information for the second offense contending it places him in double jeopardy for the same offense of reckless imprudence. MTC refused quashal of the information thus petitioner’s motion for certiorari was elevated before the RTC while moving for the suspension of the criminal case before the MTC pending resolution of the prejudicial question as subject of his motion for reconsideration at the RTC. MTC however proceeded with the criminal proceeding. The non-appearance of Ivler to the proceeding resulted to the cancellation of his bail and order of his arrest was issued. By virtue of this arrest order, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the motion for certiorari filed by Ivler on ground that he loss standing to maintain suit. RTC dismissed said petition on this ground thus this petition to the Supreme Court.

Happy Birthday Dean Q

Dean Q will celebrate her birthday soon and she deserves a page on my blog. I truly appreciate her inspiring words of wisdom and kindness to me. Although seldom expressed, I really appreciate her. I wish her good health, lively spirit and a happy heart.

Thanks for the friendship, understanding, support and for everything Dean! You are the sexiest and most alluring attorney your age that I have known. Keep up your happy disposition and optimistic point of views that make you look young and high spirited.

From the Dura Lex Sed Lex Group, we want to let you know you are loved and appreciated!

Philippine Savings Bank v Chowking Food Corp. GR No. 177526, July 4, 2008

Facts:

Rino Manzano, acting accounting manager of Chowking, endorsed and encashed from the petitioner 5 checks amounting to a total of P556,981.86. The checks were encashed without the signatures of the other authorized officials of Chowking but was accepted and honored by Santos. Manzano misappropriated the amount and when Chowking found out it demanded reimbursement from the bank. The bank refused thus the respondent filed a complaint for the sum of money with damages. It impleaded the bank president, Antonio Abacan and the bank branch manager, Santos who in turn filed a cross claim and third party complaint against Manzano. But summon was not served to Manzano and the third party complaint was archived when Santos did not take any further action. The bank maintained it exercised due diligence in the supervision of its employees while Santos denied to be negligent on her job. Abacan invokes that the respondent does not have any cause of action against him because he has no involvement to the transaction. Santos and Abacan both contend that Chowking is estopped from claiming reimbursement and damages because of its negligence for allowing Manzano to take hold, endorse and encash its checks.

First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No. 174134, July 30, 2008

Facts:

The BIR informed the petitioner on its VAT and Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) deficiency for the year 2000. The petitioner protested after receiving the formal assessment notice from the BIR directing it to pay its VAT deficiencies with surcharges and interest. They contend they are not a lending investor within the scope of Section 108 (A) of the National Internal Revenue Code therefore not subject to Vat and that a pawn ticket is not subject to DST because it is not a proof of pledge of transaction. Their protest was denied by the BIR Regional Director and their appeal was likewise denied by the Court of Tax Appeal hence this petition for review.

Security Bank and Trust Co. v Eric Gan GR No. 150464, June 27, 2006

Facts:

Respondent Gan opened a current account to the petitioner which he can draw check from its fund. Under a special agreement with the petitioner manager Mr. Qui, respondent is allowed to transfer fund from his account to another person’s account. His transaction of transferring fund from his account to another account is covered by a debit memo. In December 14, 1982, he was reportedly to have incurred a negative balance in the amount of P153,757.78. By Sept. 15, 1990 his total obligation to the petitioner allegedly amounted to P297,060.01 inclusive of interest. Petitioner filed a complaint to recover the sum of money from the respondent after his refusal to pay contending that the alleged overdraft was made from transactions without his knowledge and consent. Petitioner presented its bookkeeper, Patricio Mercado who handles the respondent’s account and transactions in a ledger. Records show that a transfer of fund from the respondent’s account was made to another person’s account which was made with authority from Qui which resulted to the overdraft of his account. Respondent denied to have authorized such transaction. The lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish with substantial evidence that the respondent does owe them that sum of money. The CA affirmed the lower court decision upon the court hence this petition.

Prudential Bank v Chonney Lim GR No. 136371, November 11, 2005

Facts:

Respondent allegedly made 2 deposits in the amount of P34,000 each on the 14^th and 15^th of March 1988 in his savings account. He availed of the petitioner bank’s automatic transfer system where his savings deposit may be automatically transferred in his checking account in case the latter has insufficient fund to pay for his issued checks. Apparently, respondent received a letter of dishonor for his checks due to insufficient fund. He wrote a letter to the bank opposing their claim that he has an insufficient fund while asserting to have made two separate deposits in the amount of P34,000 to his savings account. The bank denied receiving two separate deposits and verified only that respondent made a deposit only on the 14^th of March and that the deposit slip dated March 15 presented by the respondent is merely a copy of the former. Upon presentation of evidence, it was clear that the two separate deposit slips have the same amount but with different denominations stated therein. This was further attested by the bank teller who admitted to have stamped both deposit slips. The lower court decided in favor of the respondent. Upon appeal by the petitioner, the court of appeals affirmed the lower court decision with some modification on the award of damages hence this petition to the Supreme Court.