Cezar 362 Phil 184 302 SCRA 559 1999 and VSC Commercial Enterprises Inc v Court

Cezar 362 phil 184 302 scra 559 1999 and vsc

This preview shows page 21 - 23 out of 26 pages.

Cezar , 362 Phil. 184; 302 SCRA 559 (1999) and VSC Commercial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 442 Phil. 269; 394 SCRA 74 (2002). 332 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ariaga Vda. de Gurrea vs. Suplico WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the May 24, 2000 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 43642 is AFFIRMED. Let the records of the case be remanded to the Regional Executive Director, DENR, Region VII for the execution of the September 18, 1986 Decision of the Minister of Natural Resources in MNR CASE No. 4096. SO ORDERED. Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Austria- Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ ., concur. Chico-Nazario, J ., On Official Leave. Petition denied, judgment affirmed. Note .—Only the government may institute an action to recover ownership of a public land. ( VSC Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals , 394 SCRA 74 [2002]) ——o0o—— © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Image of page 21
the victim while vehemently denying to the police authorities any participation for the death of his wife. ( People vs. Teves , 356 SCRA 14 [2001]) It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. ( People vs. Suarez , 456 SCRA 333 [2005]) ——o0o—— G.R. No. 179333. August 3, 2010. * JOEPHIL C. BIEN, petitioner, vs. PEDRO B. BO, respondent. Administrative Cases; In administrative cases, the requisite proof is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. —Petitioner’s participation in the destruction of the improvements on the subject property introduced by the respondent, as well as petitioner’s ownership of one of the cottages subsequently erected therein, were supported by substantial evidence. In administrative cases, the requisite proof is substantial evidence, i.e. , that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In the case at bar, substantial evidence consisted in the findings of the DENR-PENRO identifying petitioner as one of the owners of the twenty-two (22) cottages illegally erected on the subject property covered by a lease application of respondent. The Final Report of the DENR- PENRO narrates the circumstances surrounding the conflict between respondent and the barangay officials of San Isidro Ilawod, concerning respondent’s application for lease of the subject property: On May 11, 1993, Applicant-Respondent filed with the DENR-CENRO, Legazpi a foreshore lease application and designated as F.L.A. No. 050509-01. After six (6) years of follow-up by Applicant-Respondent on the actions taken on his application, it was on April 28, 2003 that the Notice to Lease _______________ * SECOND DIVISION. 520 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Bien vs. Bo Public Land was ultimately released for posting in the barangay where the applied area is located. Instead of having it posted by the Barangay Officials of San Isidro Ilawod, Malilipot, Albay, they refused its posting and consequently filed their opposition on June 4, 2003, just five (5) days before the scheduled bidding of the applied area.
Image of page 22
Image of page 23

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 26 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Real property law

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture