Possession Possession is not an alien concept to you. Do you still recall when the first time we discuss possession.

Yes sir. When we discuss ownership right? We discuss about The attributes of ownership. One of which is The right to possession. In relation also to the different remedies to recover possession. Okay. Forcible entry, unlawful detainer, accion publiciana, accion reindeer where in those cases the issue is possession. But the possession we learned earlier and the possession we are going to discuss there is a difference.. can u tell us mr. Perolino the possession we discussed and the possession we are going to discuss today? Ummm Difference sir? I think umm, one of the difference is that in this topic sir, there is material possession. How bout in the possession in the attribute of ownership, ...... there is sir. Still implies the existence of possession. But what is the basis of possessory right under ownership. What is the foundation of such right.. ownership sir. Ownership right. Alright whereas in this case what is it? It is not necessarily ownership. So are you saying that there is possession also but is not the foundation of ownership. Can u give me an example of possession which do not rely on upon ownership. Notes format na ang sunod.... Example Accomodatum- applies only to personal property and non-consummable...even if you are possessing the thing and not the owner thereof. You still have a legal right to possess the thing. Ownership is not the basis for possession. You are still protected under the law over your possessory right. If deprived you can recover the property, based on the right under the accomodatum. Ownership and possession -not the same.
Distinction between possession and ownership. MEDINA ET.AL. VS. GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Wala ko ni refer sa recordings ani, ni case ko, hehe kay way klaro diskusyon ni sir ani... dili pang answer sa essay iya gipangsulti...

Possession and ownership are two different legal concepts. Just as possession is not a definite proof of ownership, neither is non-possession inconsistent with ownership. Even assuming that petitioners' allegations are true, it bears no legal consequence in the case at hand because the execution of the deeds of conveyances is already deemed equivalent to delivery of the property to respondent, and prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required.28 Under Article 1498 of the Civil Code, "when the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot be inferred." Possession is also transferred, along with ownership thereof, to respondent by virtue of the notarized deeds of conveyances. In special penal laws, possession and not criminal intent is what matters. Possession has 2 elements/componentsa)material occupation- actual or constructive possession of the thing b)intent to possess- in order to use the thing in one way or another- people vs mesa

example, if you are a batang rasta. Riding on a bus, you fell asleep and your seatmate left a bag of marijuana on your lap then a law enforcement officer saw the marijuana. Your only defense is the lack of intent to possess. How can there be intent to possess when you were asleep. There is material occupation but intent to possess is wanting. Possession is defined in the law.. Holding of the thing, and enjoyment of the right. Ong vs RP *hectares= has. Applying for registration of a parcel land- SC when using the occupation since 1945, it is possession AND occupation. Possession is broader than occupation. The law requires possession and occupation..Prove possession and occupation as well.. that is why the law uses the conjunctive word AND. Possession may be in part and in whole. But for purposes of registration, you have to show proof that you actually possess and occupy the 10 has. You need not put every house on every has. You need to show actual occupation and not merely possession.
Pang answer sa essay

Further, as correctly pointed by the Court of Appeals, possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. 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. Ong vs RP BUT! in cases in recovering property when people are encroaching your property, and you are not in actual occupation of the encroached portion of the 10 has. Because you are only occupying 1 has. Now you can apply Possession in part is possession of the whole!(constructive possession) Possession of 1 has. Is possession of the 10has. Because in recovery, possession is the only issue. The law deems you in possession of the entire land holdings. POSSESSION WE DISCUSSED EARLIER- JUS possidendi, the source is ownership. The right to possession. You are the owner, then you are entitled to possession. You do not have to file a case to recover possession, being the owner you have the possessory right POSSESSION WE ARE DISCUSSING- the right of possession.... broader form of ownership..goes beyond ownership as the source of ownership. Need not rely on ownership as the right to possess.

e.g. accomodatum, lease and etc. They draw their life not on ownership but on another independent source. You are still protected by law.. if you are the leasee, you have the right of possession. Then if the owner barges in without your authority, you can sue the owner for forcible entry.

How to prove possession-> plantation of coconuts= you are harvesting the coconuts. And You are enjoying the property. Or TAX DECLARATIONS