This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-10-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The authority of the courts to resolve and settle questions relating to the possession of property has long been settled.[12] This authority continues, even when the land in question is public land. As we explained in Solis v. Intermediate Appellate Court:[13] | |||||
|
2007-11-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| THE COURT OF APPEALS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT (sic) HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS A BETTER RIGHT TO POSSESS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. First off, it must be stated that the power to resolve conflicts of possession is recognized to be within the legal competence of the civil courts and its purpose is to extend protection to the actual possessors and occupants with a view to quell social unrest. A judgment of the court ordering restitution of the possession of a parcel of land to the actual occupant, who has been deprived thereof by another through the use of force or in any other illegal manner, should never be construed as an interference with the disposition and alienation of public lands.[20] | |||||