This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-17 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In this case, respondents failed to establish their prior and continued possession of the subject property after its sale in favor of petitioner in 1981. On the contrary, they even admitted in their answer to the complaint that petitioner exercised dominion over the same by instituting caretakers and leasing portions thereof to third persons.[24] Suffice it to state that 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.[25] Thus, finding petitioner's assertion to be well-founded, the MCTC properly adjudged petitioner to have prior possession over the subject property as against Sabandal-Herzenstiel, who never claimed ownership or possession thereof. [26] | |||||
|
2010-04-07 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Two elements are paramount in possession - there must be occupancy, apprehension or taking, and there must be intent to possess.[15] In the present case, given the immediately quoted allegation-admission of So, intent to possess was not present on Food Fest's part. | |||||