Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 420 views

    Republic Vs Heirs of Lachica Sin

    Uploaded by

    AsunaYuuki
    The Heirs of Maxima Lachica-Sin claim ownership of 41,231 square meters of land that was allegedly usurped by the Aklan National College of Fisheries (ANCF) to be used for educational purposes. However, ANCF argues that the land was allocated to them by presidential proclamation for a civil reservation and is classified as timberland, which cannot be privately owned. While the Heirs provided tax declarations dating back to 1945 to assert prior possession, the court held that under the Regalian doctrine, all public lands are presumed to belong to the state unless proven otherwise. As the Heirs did not provide evidence of a government proclamation or certification declaring the land alienable and disposable, the land

    Copyright:

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

    Republic Vs Heirs of Lachica Sin

    Uploaded by

    AsunaYuuki
    420 views1 page
    The Heirs of Maxima Lachica-Sin claim ownership of 41,231 square meters of land that was allegedly usurped by the Aklan National College of Fisheries (ANCF) to be used for educational purposes. However, ANCF argues that the land was allocated to them by presidential proclamation for a civil reservation and is classified as timberland, which cannot be privately owned. While the Heirs provided tax declarations dating back to 1945 to assert prior possession, the court held that under the Regalian doctrine, all public lands are presumed to belong to the state unless proven otherwise. As the Heirs did not provide evidence of a government proclamation or certification declaring the land alienable and disposable, the land

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Republic vs Heirs of Lachica Sin

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Heirs of Maxima Lachica-Sin claim ownership of 41,231 square meters of land that was allegedly usurped by the Aklan National College of Fisheries (ANCF) to be used for educational purposes. However, ANCF argues that the land was allocated to them by presidential proclamation for a civil reservation and is classified as timberland, which cannot be privately owned. While the Heirs provided tax declarations dating back to 1945 to assert prior possession, the court held that under the Regalian doctrine, all public lands are presumed to belong to the state unless proven otherwise. As the Heirs did not provide evidence of a government proclamation or certification declaring the land alienable and disposable, the land

    Copyright:

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

    Republic Vs Heirs of Lachica Sin

    Uploaded by

    AsunaYuuki
    The Heirs of Maxima Lachica-Sin claim ownership of 41,231 square meters of land that was allegedly usurped by the Aklan National College of Fisheries (ANCF) to be used for educational purposes. However, ANCF argues that the land was allocated to them by presidential proclamation for a civil reservation and is classified as timberland, which cannot be privately owned. While the Heirs provided tax declarations dating back to 1945 to assert prior possession, the court held that under the Regalian doctrine, all public lands are presumed to belong to the state unless proven otherwise. As the Heirs did not provide evidence of a government proclamation or certification declaring the land alienable and disposable, the land

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Republic vs.

    Heirs of Lachica-Sin 26 March 2014


    FACTS:
    The Heirs of Maxima Lachica-Sin claim that a 41,231-square meter-portion of the property they inherited
    had been usurped by Aklan National College of Fisheries, creating a cloud of doubt with respect to their
    ownership over the parcel of land they wish to remove from the ANCF reservation.
    The ANCF Superintendent countered that the parcel of land being claimed by the Heirs was the subject of
    Proclamation No. 2074 of then President Ferdinand E. Marcos allocating 24.0551 hectares of land within the
    area, which included said portion of the Heirs alleged property, as civil reservation for educational purposes
    of ANCF. The ANCF Superintendent furthermore assert that the land is timberland and therefore not
    susceptible of private ownership.
    The Heirs assert that they were previously in open and continuous possession of the land as owners. They
    presented several Tax declarations, the earliest of which was in the year 1945. Since the area was declared
    timberland only on December 22, 1960, they also allege that this land is an alienable and disposable land of
    the public domain. Maxima Lachica-Sin bought the property in 1932, 28 years before its classification as
    Timberland.
    However, ANCF alleges that under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the
    State and that lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
    ISSUE:
    Whether the land of the Heirs is public and alienable land.
    HELD:
    NO.
    Under the Regalian doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong
    to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be
    clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown
    to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by
    the State remain part of the inalienable public domain. Unless public land is shown to have been
    reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable
    public domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of
    private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no
    matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title. The burden of proof in
    overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying
    for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable
    or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land
    subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable. There must be a positive act declaring land
    of the public domain as alienable and disposable. This can be proved by a proclamation or certificate
    from the government that the land is alienable and disposable.
    The Heirs presented no evidence by government proclamation or certification that the land they possess was
    alienable and disposable. Therefore, the land is not open to be occupied by them. The land was only
    classified as timberland in the year 1960 but this does not mean that the land was alienable before that year.
    The presumption is that unclassified lands are inalienable public lands.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy