This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that unless a land is reclassified and declared alienable and disposable, occupation in the concept of an owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.[40] Consequently, respondents could not have occupied the Lot in the concept of an owner in 1947 and subsequent years when respondents declared the Lot for taxation purposes, or even earlier when respondents' predecessors-in-interest possessed the Lot, because the Lot was considered inalienable from the time of its declaration as a military reservation in 1904. Therefore, respondents failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Lot is alienable and disposable. | |||||
|
2006-09-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. Jacob,[25] the Court explained the concept of possession and occupation referred to in cases of registration of title, viz.:Indeed, the law speaks of "possession and occupation." Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. Unless, therefore, the law adds the word "occupation," it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words "continuous," "exclusive" and "notorious," the word "occupation" seems to highlight the facts that for an applicant to qualify, her possession of the property must not be a mere fiction. | |||||