rmyera

In resume, therefore, the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands had the right to authorize the condemnation of this land for military and aviation purposes, and no constitutional provision has been violated. The Court of First Instance of Rizal has merely acted in strict accord with law, and its action should, consequently, be sustained

POLICE POWER

1.
LTO v. City of Butuan, G. R. No. 131512, January 20, 2000
2.
Romeo Gerochi v. DOE. G. R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007
3.
Planters Products, Inc. v. FERTIPHIL Corp., G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008
4.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200

5.
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila, July 31, 1967

6.
White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009
7.
Taxicab Operators v. Board of Transportation, 119 SCRA 597

8.
Republic v. Meralco, G.R. No. 141314, Nov. 15, 2002

9.
Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649

10.
Ormoc Sugar Central v. City Treasurer, G.R. No. L-23794, Feb. 17, 1968

11.
Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148

12.
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255

13.
Miners Association v. Factoran, 240 SCRA 100

14.
Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA, 195 SCRA 112

contact daw for bed" - 09233122427 / 231 6492


******************** - Bed frame for 3k only (neg) - contact Paul



******************** - CUSTOMIZED FURNITURES - 09329137768/09176275031

for inquiries/ faster transaction:
09157854551/ 09176222254
******************** - FS: 2HP Split Type Aircon (wall mount, remote, like new)...... - 14k

Your guy is the kind of guy who wants to collect women, not woman.

He told you that he's selfish. He wants to exhaust you. Use you and abuse you. Why are you still clinging to him? You have no future together. You've been down this road before.

Don't let him ruin you!

SMWSI vs Soriano
Facts:
Petitioner SMWSI is an educational institution incorporated and existing by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. It is the current registered owner of the three parcels of land. Petitioner Marcial P. Soriano is the President of petitioner SMWSI.
Private respondent Hilario P. Soriano, on the other hand, is one of the siblings of petitioner Marcial P. Soriano.
private respondent alleged that during the marriage of his parents, Tomas Q. Soriano and Josefina P. Soriano, the couple acquired both real and personal properties, including the subject properties, which were then covered by TCTs No. 169941,11 No. 114408,12 and No. 114409.13 On 10 May 1988, the Soriano couple allegedly executed14 a Deed of Assignment15 in favor of ODC involving the subject properties to pay for Tomas Q. Soriano’s subscription of stocks in the said corporation. On 14 June 1988, Tomas Q. Soriano died16 intestate.

This Court has ruled that although tax declarations or realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind will be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.

no title was ever issued in the name of the latter. This is because there were basic requirements not complied with, the most important of which was that the deed of sale executed by the Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Hence, the deed of sale was void. "Approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale." Moreover, Cebu Country Club, Inc. was in possession of the land since 1931, and had been paying the real estate taxes thereon based on tax declarations in its name with the title number indicated thereon. Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation purposes are strong evidence of ownership.

predecessor of respondent Cebu Country Club, Inc (Cebu Country Club) and that later it had been reconstituted in the name of the respondents.
On September 25, 1992, Francisco commenced against Cebu Country Club in the RTC in Cebu City an action for the declaration of nullity and non-existence of deed/title, the cancellation of certificates of title, and the recovery of property.
On Jan 31, 2002 decision, court held that Title Nos. 251, 232, and 253 legally belongs to the Government of the Philippines. Decision has became final and executory.
The Congress ultimately enacted a law to validate the TCTs and reconstituted titles covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City. This was Republic Act No. 9443,13 effective on July 27, 2007

Issue:Who has a better right

Held:neither petitioners nor their predecessor had any title to the land in question. The sales patent, however, and even the corresponding deed of sale were not registered with the Register of Deeds and

Alonso vs Cebu Country Club

Facts:
In 1992, Francisco discovered showing that his father Tomas N. Alonso had acquired Lot No. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from the Government in or about the year 1911; that the original vendee of Lot No. 727 had assigned his sales certificate to Tomas N. Alonso, who had been consequently issued Patent No. 14353; and that on March 27, 1926, the Director of Lands had executed a final deed of sale in favor of Tomas N. Alonso, but the final deed of sale had not been registered with the Register of Deeds because of lack of requirements, like the approval of the final deed of sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as required by law.
He subsequently found out that the certificate of title covering the subject lot had been administratively reconstituted from the owner's duplicate in the name of United Service Country Club, Inc., the

Issue: Who has a better right.
Held: Petitioner was bound by his notice of adverse claim and lis pendens annotated at the back of Fernandez' TCT. Moreover, even if We grant Mota the status of an innocent mortgagee, the doctrine relied upon by the appellate court that a forged instrument may become the root of a valid title, cannot be applied where the owner still holds a valid and existing certificate of title covering the same interest in a realty.
We held that as between two persons both of whom are in good faith and both innocent of any negligence, the law must protect and prefer the lawful holder of registered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any transmissible rights.