This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the case of Heirs of Marcelina Azardon-Crisologo v. Rañon,[26] the Court ruled that a mere Notice of Adverse Claim did not constitute an effective interruption of possession. In the case of Heirs of Bienvenido and Araceli Tanyag v. Gabriel,[27] which also cited the Rañon Case, the Court stated that the acts of declaring again the property for tax purposes and obtaining a Torrens certificate of title in one's name cannot defeat another's right of ownership acquired through acquisitive prescription.[28] | |||||
|
2012-02-20 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, Section 14 (2) is silent as to the required nature of possession and occupation, thus, requiring a reference to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on prescription. And under Article 1118 thereof, possession for purposes of prescription must be "in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted". In Heirs of Marcelina Arzadon-Crisologo v. Rañon,[25] this Court expounded on the nature of possession required for purposes of prescription: It is concerned with lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. The party who asserts ownership by adverse possession must prove the presence of the essential elements of acquisitive prescription.[26] (citations omitted) | |||||