This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-11-10 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| 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. 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.[60] (Italics in the original) | |||||
|
2013-11-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, jurisprudence recognizes certain exceptions to the settled rule. When the lower courts grossly misunderstood the facts and circumstances that, when correctly appreciated, would warrant a different conclusion, a review of the lower courts' findings may be made.[26] This, in our view, is the exact situation in the case as our discussions below will show. | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Belmonte, however, failed to convince the Court that she has met the indispensable requirements of possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier to merit the registration of the title in her name. Possession and occupation alone, for 30 years or more, does not suffice. As provided in P.D. No. 1073, it is mandatory that possession and occupation of the piece of land by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, had commenced on June 12, 1945 or earlier.[53] The burden of proving adverse, continuous, open, and public possession in the concept of an owner rests upon the applicant, by no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence.[54] | |||||
|
2012-07-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| [39] Republic v. East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 186961, 20 February 2012. | |||||
|
2012-04-24 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In its Resolution dated 17 August 2010,[43] the COMELEC en banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner. Although he was able to receive his copy of the Resolution, no prior notice setting the date of promulgation of the said Resolution was received by him. Meanwhile, Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 (Rules on Disqualification Cases Filed in Connection with the May 10, 2012 Automated National and Local Elections) requires the parties to be notified in advance of the date of the promulgation of the Resolution. | |||||
|
2012-04-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As this Court clarified in Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines,[15] and Republic of the Philippines v. East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation,[16] Section 14(1) covers "alienable and disposable lands" while Section 14(2) covers "private property". Thus, for one's possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable public land to give rise to an imperfect title, the same should have commenced on June 12, 1945 or earlier. On the other, for one to claim that his possession and occupation of private property has ripened to imperfect title, the same should have been for the prescriptive period provided under the Civil Code. Without need for an extensive extrapolation, the private property contemplated in Section 14(2) is patrimonial property as defined in Article 421 in relation to Articles 420 and 422 of the Civil Code. | |||||