REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs PEDRO O. ENCISO November 11, 2005 G.R. No.

160145

CALLEJO, SR., J.: Facts: Encisco filed for the registration of a parcel of land he inherited from his father, Vicente Encisco. The parcel of land was originally owned by Municipality of Mansiloc, Zambales but upon the passage of Resolution No. 70 and 120, the land was given to Honorato Endao, Enciscos uncle. Endao later sold the parcel of land to Vicente Encisco. Encisco alleged that he had been in continuous, peaceful, open, notorious, uninterrupted and adverse possession of the land. Petitioner opposed the registration alleging that the parcel of land is a portion of public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines. Pending the report on the status of the parcel of land, the trial court granted the application of Encisco. Issue: Whether or not Enciscos application should be granted. Held: No. Sec. 14 of PD 1529 provides for applicants to prove that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, and that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same. There is nothing to support the respondents claim that the property was reclassified as residential already segregated from the public domain and assumed the character of private ownership.

G.R. No. 149114

July 21, 2006

SPS. TAN SING PAN and MAGDALENA S. VERANGA, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, GARCIA, J.: Facts: The Director of Lands, acting in behalf of the Government, instituted Cadastral Case No. 67 pursuant to the government's initiative to place all lands under the Cadastral System. Six decades after, the petitioners filed an answer alleging that the owned the subject parcel of land had been in possession of it for 18 years or 60 years upon attachment of their predecessor in interest possession. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the spouses. Upon appeal, the respondents contend that trial court erred in proceeding with the hearing of the case despite petitioners' failure to prove the publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the Office Gazette. Issue: Whether or not Petitioner complied with the procedure for Cadastral Registration. Held: No. Publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the Official Gazette is one of the essential requisites for a court to acquire jurisdiction in land registration and cadastral cases, and additional territory cannot be included by amendment of the plan without new publication. It is incumbent upon the petitioners to establish by positive proof that the publication requirement has been complied with, what with the fact that they are the ones who stood to be benefited by the adjudication of the subject lot. Regrettably, they failed to present proof of publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing.

Note: Next case is not related to LTD.

G.R. No. 174168 March 30, 2009

SY TIONG SHIOU, JUANITA TAN SY, JOLIE ROSS TAN, ROMER TAN, CHARLIE TAN, and JESSIE JAMES TAN, vs. SY CHIM and FELICIDAD CHAN SY Tinga, J: Facts: The respondents filed 4 complaints against petitioners. Two of the complaints were for the alleged violation of the Corporation code while the other two are criminal complaints for falsification and perjury. Respondents, stockholders of Sy Siy Ho & Sons, Inc, averred that the petitioners refused to allow them to inspect the corporations books and records, and that Sy Tiong Shiou executed under oath the 2003 General Information Sheet wherein he falsely stated that the shareholdings of the Spouses Sy had decreased despite the fact that they had not executed any conveyance of their shares. Sy Tiong Shiou argued that the issues involved in the pending civil case for accounting and damages were intimately related to the complaints filed by the Spouses Sy against them, and thus constituted a prejudicial question that should require the suspension of the criminal complaints. Issue: Whether or not the pending civil case constitutes a prejudicial question. Held: The civil action for accounting and damages seeks the issuance of an order compelling the Spouses Sy to render a full, complete and true accounting of all the amounts, proceeds and fund paid to, received and earned by the corporation since1993.. The criminal cases, on the other hand, charge that the Spouses Sy were illegally prevented from getting inside company premises and from inspecting company records, and that Sy Tiong Shiou falsified the entries in the GIS, specifically the Spouses Sys shares in the corporation. Surely, the civil case presents no prejudicial question to the criminal cases since a finding that the Spouses Sy mishandled the funds will have no effect on the determination of guilt in the complaints.