This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-06-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As found by the Court of Appeals, petitioners' unsupported claim of possession must yield to that of the respondent who traces her possession of the subject property to her predecessors-in-interest who have always been in possession of the subject property. Even assuming that respondent was never a resident of the subject property, she could legally continue possessing the property. Visiting the property on weekends and holidays is evidence of actual or physical possession.[26] The fact of her residence somewhere else, by itself, does not result in loss of possession of the subject property. The law does not require one in possession of a house to reside in the house to maintain his possession.[27] For, again, possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of the ground before he is deemed in possession.[28] There is no cogent reason to deviate from this doctrine. | |||||
|
2007-01-24 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| "[P]ossession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of the ground before he is deemed in possession."[21] In this case, Ramon, as respondent's son, was named caretaker when respondent left for the United States in 1983.[22] Due to the eventual loss of trust and confidence in Ramon, however, respondent transferred the administration of the land to his other son, Oscar, in January 1995 until his return in May 1995.[23] In other words, the subject land was in the possession of the respondent's sons during the contested period. | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The principal issue to be resolved in forcible entry cases is mere physical or material possession (possession de facto) and not juridical possession (possession de jure) nor ownership of the property involved.[20] Title is not involved. Thus, in David v. Cordova,[21] the Court explained: The only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment proceedings is -who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable, or when both parties intruded into public land and their applications to own the land have yet to be approved by the proper government agency. Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession. | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| [77] Dela Rosa v. Carlos, G.R. No. 147549, 23 October 2003. | |||||