This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Prescription as a mode of acquisition requires the existence of the following: (1) capacity to acquire by prescription; (2) a thing capable of acquisition by prescription; (3) possession of the thing under certain conditions; and (4) lapse of time provided by law. Acquisitive prescription may either be ordinary, in which case the possession must be in good faith and with just title; or extraordinary, in which case there is neither good faith nor just title. In either case, there has to be possession, which must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted.[26] As a corollary, Article 1119 of the Civil Code provides that: Art. 1119. Acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the owner shall not be available for the purposes of possession. | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The thirteen-year interval between the execution of the 1980 deeds of sale and the filing of the complaint in 1993 does not bar respondent's claim for compensation. In National Power Corporation v. Campos, Jr.,[15] this Court reiterated the long-standing rule "that where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner's action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe."[16] | |||||