(1)

Possession in the concept of holder

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

4:29 AM

CARLOS VS. REPUBLIC

1. FACTS
a. 2001, DEC. 19 - MARIA CARLOS via TERESITA
CARLOS VICTORIA filed an application for
registration and confirmation of title over a parcel
of land; they alleged that:
i. They are on OCENPO since June 12, 1945 or
earlier under a bonafide claim of ownership
ii. No mortgage or encumbrance
iii. Not part of military or naval reservation;
iv. Property being used for industrial purposes
v. No tenants/lessee on the property
vi. They are in possession of the subject land in
the concept of an owner
vii. Possession has been peaceful, public,
uninterrupted, continuous since 1948 or
earlier
viii. Possession with that of her pii;
ix. Possession of land for more than 50 years;
x. Land is a&d via denr offiers;
b. Republic via DOL opposed application;
c. 2002, OCT 24 - RTC granted application;
d. CA reversed the RTC decision;
i. At the time she filed her application for
registration, the title is no longer in her
POSESSION and OCCUPATION of the land in
question since OCT. 16, 1996. because the
applicants mother and pii sold the subject
land to Ususan Devpt Corp;
1) Hence, the applicant has no registrable
title over the land in question;
2. MAP
a. Property was previously owned by Jose Carlos;
planted palay and sold harvest;
i. 1948 - Maria Carlos inherited property and
took possession;
1) 1996 - Ususan Devpt Corporation
bought the property and the
petitioners are bound to deliver the
certificate of title but they have to
undergo the registration first
2) 2001 - Teresita Carlos Victoria took
possession of the property and applied
for a registration;
3. ISSUE
4. RULING
a. Petitioner has met the first requirement but not
the 2nd; which is OCENPO under the bonafide
claim if ownershp since June 12, 1945;
b. Petitioner's possession was no longer in the
concept of an owner;
c. Petition is denied;
5. WISDOM
a. Applicants for the confirmation of imperfect titles
must prove the following:
i. That the land forms part of A&D agricultural
lands of PD
ii. They have been in an OCENPO of the same
under the bonafide claim of ownership either
since time immemorial or since June 12,
1945;
b. Republic vs. Alconaba: the applicant must show
that he is in actual possession of the property at
the time of application thus:
i. The law speaks of possession and occupation;
1) The clear intention of the law is not to
make one synonymous with the other;
2) Possession is broader than occupation
because it includes constructive
possession;
3) The law adds the word occupation, it
seeks to delimit the all-encompassing
effect of constructive possession;
4) Taken together with OCEN, the word
occupation serves to highlight the fact
that for an applicant to qualify, his
possession must not be a mere fiction;
5) Actual possession of a land consists in
the manifestation of acts of dominion
over it of such a nature as a party
would naturally exercise over his own
property;
c. Possession may be had in two ways:
i. Possession in the concept of an owner
1) May be the owner himself; or
2) One who claims to be so;
ii. Possession in the concept of a holder;
1) Acknowledges in another a superior
right which he believes to be
ownership;
a) Belief may be right
b) Belief may be wrong;