This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-11-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, to prove its compliance with Section 48(b)'s possession requirement, the RCAM had to show that it performed specific overt acts in the character an owner would naturally exercise over his own property. Proof of actual possession of the property at the time of the filing of the application is required because the phrase "adverse, continuous, open, public, and in concept of owner," the RCAM used to describe its alleged possession, is a conclusion of law,[30] not an allegation of fact. "Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent [and] notorious x x x continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when [the possession is characterized by acts manifesting] exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to [the applicant's] 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."[31] | |||||