Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Case Digest (DepEd v. Tuliao)

    Uploaded by

    Pearl Go
    1) Mariano Tuliao filed a case against the Department of Education to recover possession of a property and remove structures built on it. Tuliao presented a certificate of title, tax declarations, and tax receipts as proof of ownership. 2) The DepED claimed it had adverse possession of the land for over 50 years and was not required to pay rent. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tuliao, finding that the documentary evidence of ownership outweighed DepED's witness testimony. However, it could not immediately order removal of structures and told Tuliao to exercise options under property law.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest (DepEd v. Tuliao)

    Uploaded by

    Pearl Go
    33 views2 pages
    1) Mariano Tuliao filed a case against the Department of Education to recover possession of a property and remove structures built on it. Tuliao presented a certificate of title, tax declarations, and tax receipts as proof of ownership. 2) The DepED claimed it had adverse possession of the land for over 50 years and was not required to pay rent. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tuliao, finding that the documentary evidence of ownership outweighed DepED's witness testimony. However, it could not immediately order removal of structures and told Tuliao to exercise options under property law.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Mariano Tuliao filed a case against the Department of Education to recover possession of a property and remove structures built on it. Tuliao presented a certificate of title, tax declarations, and tax receipts as proof of ownership. 2) The DepED claimed it had adverse possession of the land for over 50 years and was not required to pay rent. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tuliao, finding that the documentary evidence of ownership outweighed DepED's witness testimony. However, it could not immediately order removal of structures and told Tuliao to exercise options under property law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views2 pages

    Case Digest (DepEd v. Tuliao)

    Uploaded by

    Pearl Go
    1) Mariano Tuliao filed a case against the Department of Education to recover possession of a property and remove structures built on it. Tuliao presented a certificate of title, tax declarations, and tax receipts as proof of ownership. 2) The DepED claimed it had adverse possession of the land for over 50 years and was not required to pay rent. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tuliao, finding that the documentary evidence of ownership outweighed DepED's witness testimony. However, it could not immediately order removal of structures and told Tuliao to exercise options under property law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v.

    MARIANO TULIAO
    G.R. No. 205664 June 9, 2014

    FACTS:

    Mariano Tuliao filed a complaint for recovery of possession and removal of structure
    with damages against the Department of Education (DepEd). To support his claim, he presented
    not only tax declarations and tax receipts, but also a certificate of title. In its defense, the DepEd
    denied the material allegations of the complaint and averred that its occupation on the subject
    land was adverse, peaceful, continuous and in the concept of an owner for more than fifty (50)
    years. It also alleged that, as owner of the school site, it could not be compelled to pay rent or its
    reasonable value.

    ISSUES:

    1. Is Mariano Tuliao the owner of the disputed property?


    2. Can DepEd be compelled to remove the structure built on the said property?

    RULING:

    1. YES.
    The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Mendoza, declared that between a
    certificate of title, which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership, accompanied with a tax
    declaration and a tax receipt on one hand, and a testimony of a lone witness who is a retired
    teacher on the other, the former prevails in establishing who has a better right of possession over
    the property, following the rule that testimonial evidence cannot prevail over documentary
    evidence.

    2. NO.
    The Court agreed with the MTCC when it stated that it could not order the immediate
    removal of the structures and directed Tuliao to exercise his option under Article 448 of the New
    Civil Code. If that would not be feasible or practical for DepEd, its remedy is to file an action for
    expropriation.

    You might also like