This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction.[22] Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.[23] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Applicant failed to prove specific acts showing the nature of the possession of her predecessors in interest. "Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property."[11] "The applicant must present specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law than factual evidence of possession."[12] | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Applicant failed to prove specific acts showing the nature of its possession and that of its predecessors in interest.[19] "The applicant must present specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law than factual evidence of possession."[20] "Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property."[21] | |||||