Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Facts:: 30. Republic of The Philippines vs. Zenaida Guinto-Aldana G.R. No. 175578, August 11, 2010

    Uploaded by

    sophiabarnachea
    Respondents filed an application for registration of title over two pieces of land, claiming succession from their predecessors who had possessed the land since 1937. They provided tax declarations and receipts showing consistent payment of real estate taxes under their and their predecessors' names. Petitioner opposed on grounds that tax documents did not prove bona fide acquisition or prior possession as owner. The court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that tax declarations and payments since 1937 indicated possession as owners, as one does not pay taxes for property not in their possession, and that respondents' possession had been open, continuous, peaceful and uncontested.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Facts:: 30. Republic of The Philippines vs. Zenaida Guinto-Aldana G.R. No. 175578, August 11, 2010

    Uploaded by

    sophiabarnachea
    42 views1 page
    Respondents filed an application for registration of title over two pieces of land, claiming succession from their predecessors who had possessed the land since 1937. They provided tax declarations and receipts showing consistent payment of real estate taxes under their and their predecessors' names. Petitioner opposed on grounds that tax documents did not prove bona fide acquisition or prior possession as owner. The court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that tax declarations and payments since 1937 indicated possession as owners, as one does not pay taxes for property not in their possession, and that respondents' possession had been open, continuous, peaceful and uncontested.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    30.-republic-v-guinto-aldana

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondents filed an application for registration of title over two pieces of land, claiming succession from their predecessors who had possessed the land since 1937. They provided tax declarations and receipts showing consistent payment of real estate taxes under their and their predecessors' names. Petitioner opposed on grounds that tax documents did not prove bona fide acquisition or prior possession as owner. The court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that tax declarations and payments since 1937 indicated possession as owners, as one does not pay taxes for property not in their possession, and that respondents' possession had been open, continuous, peaceful and uncontested.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views1 page

    Facts:: 30. Republic of The Philippines vs. Zenaida Guinto-Aldana G.R. No. 175578, August 11, 2010

    Uploaded by

    sophiabarnachea
    Respondents filed an application for registration of title over two pieces of land, claiming succession from their predecessors who had possessed the land since 1937. They provided tax declarations and receipts showing consistent payment of real estate taxes under their and their predecessors' names. Petitioner opposed on grounds that tax documents did not prove bona fide acquisition or prior possession as owner. The court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that tax declarations and payments since 1937 indicated possession as owners, as one does not pay taxes for property not in their possession, and that respondents' possession had been open, continuous, peaceful and uncontested.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 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