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.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo, Aklan vs. Mun. of Buruanga, Aklan (March 31, 2006)

“towns/pueblos/churches/public plaza are property for public use and not subject for appropriation by the State and private persons”

Facts:

Petitioners claim ownership on Lots 138-A, 138-B, and 138-C contending that said lots were adjacent to the land area occupied by the church. Respondent however claims ownership on Lots 138-A and 138-C as the Lot 138-B is indisputably owned by the Church with its open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession thereof. The lots in dispute have constructions of a public plaza, municipal building, rural health center, community medicare hospital, basketball court, Rizal monument and a grandstand. Petitioner contends that such constructions and buildings were merely allowed by them in occupation by tolerance and does not constitute possession of the respondents.

Heirs of Palanca vs Republic (August 30, 2006)

“the government should exercise a positive act to re-classify inalienable land to alienable for proper disposition; action to recover property of public domain never prescribes”

Facts:

Petitioners acquired 2 pieces of lands by inheritance and in a court decision they were declared as owners in fee simple. 23 years later the Republic filed a petition to annul the judgment and cancel the decree of registration and title and to reverse the property to the State as unclassified forest lands.

Republic vs. Naguiat (Jan. 24, 2006)

“unclassified lands cannot be acquired by adverse possession/occupation; occupation in the concept of an owner however long cannot ripen into private ownership and be registered as a title.”

Facts:

Respondent applies for registration of title to 4 parcels of land contending she is the owner of the said land which she acquired from the LID Corporation which in turn acquired the same from persons who have been in possession thereof for more than 30 years. The Republic filed in opposition that said lands belong to the public domain and not subject to private appropriation.