This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-12-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Despite 25 years of occupying the disputed lots, therefore, petitioners did not acquire ownership. Firstly, they had no just title. Petitioners did not present any document to show how the titles over Lot Nos. 17526 and 17533 were transferred to them, whether from respondent, his predecessor, or any other person.[27] Petitioners, therefore, could not acquire the disputed real property by ordinary prescription through possession for 10 years. Secondly, it is settled that ownership cannot be acquired by mere occupation. Unless coupled with the element of hostility towards the true owner, occupation and use, however long, will not confer title by prescription or adverse possession.[28] In other words, possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right, must be possession under claim of title, that is, it must be adverse.[29] | |||||
|
2009-12-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' acts of a possessory character - acts that might have been merely tolerated by the owner - did not constitute possession. No matter how long tolerated possession is continued, it does not start the running of the prescriptive period.[30] Mere material possession of land is not adverse possession as against the owner and is insufficient to vest title, unless such possession is accompanied by the intent to possess as an owner. There should be a hostile use of such a nature and exercised under such circumstance as to manifest and give notice that the possession is under a claim of right.[31] | |||||
|
2009-12-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The essential elements of laches are: (a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of; (b) delay in asserting complainant's rights after he had knowledge of defendant's acts and after he has had the opportunity to sue; (c) lack of knowledge or notice by defendant that the complainant will assert the right on which he bases his suit and (d) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event the relief is accorded to the complainant.[36] | |||||
|
2007-08-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| At all events, the due process guarantee cannot be invoked when no vested right has been acquired.[26] The period during which petitioners occupied the lots, no matter how long,[27] did not vest them with any right to claim ownership since it is a fundamental principle of law that acts of possessory character executed by virtue of license or tolerance of the owner, no matter how long, do not start the running of the period of acquisitive prescription.[28] It bears recalling that BATAHAI was formed precisely to enable the Bagong Tanyag settlers, including petitioners, to purchase the lots they were occupying. | |||||
|
2007-03-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the doctrine of laches is based upon grounds of public policy and equity. It is invoked to discourage stale claims but is entirely addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[21] Since it is an equitable doctrine, its application is likewise controlled by reasonable considerations. Thus, the better rule is that courts, under the principle of equity, should not be bound by the doctrine of laches if wrong or injustice will result.[22] | |||||
|
2005-02-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Anent the second issue, an easement or servitude is a real right, constituted on the corporeal immovable property of another, by virtue of which the owner has to refrain from doing, or must allow someone to do, something on his property, for the benefit of another thing or person.[26] The statutory basis for this right is Article 613, in connection with Article 619, of the Civil Code, which states:Art. 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner. | |||||