(iii)Title: Garcia vs CA, 312 SCRA 180, G.R. No. 133140, August 10, 1999. (iv) Issue: WON Petitioner is possessing the property in the concept of an owner (v) Ruling: No. We stress again that possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. Ownership exists when a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the owner, one of which is the right to dispose of the thing by way of sale. Atty. Pedro Garcia and his wife Remedios exercised their right to dispose of what they owned when they sold the subject property to the Magpayo spouses. On the other hand, possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right Literally, to possess means to actually and physically occupy a thing with or without right. Possession may be had in one of two ways: possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a holder. A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the owner himself or one who claims to be so. On the other hand, one who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong. The records show that petitioner occupied the property not in the concept of an owner for his stay was merely tolerated by his parents. We held in Caniza v. Court of Appeals that an owners act of allowing another to occupy his house, rent-free does not create a permanent and indefeasible right of possession in the latters favor. Consequently, it is of no moment that petitioner was in possession of the property at the time of the sale to the Magpayo spouses. It was not a hindrance to a valid transfer of ownership. On the other hand, petitioners subsequent claim of ownership as successor to his mothers share in the conjugal asset is belied by the fact that the property was not included in the inventory of the estate submitted by his father to the intestate court. This buttresses the ruling that indeed the property was no longer considered owned by petitioners parents.
Posted on: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:09:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015