adverse possession

what do you mean by adverse posession? I am applying for land registration. I dont know the meaning of adverse possession. thanks

1) "The evidence proved that as far back as 1959, Flores Restar adjudicated unto himself the whole land in question as his share from his father by means of a joint affidavit which he executed with one Helen Restar, and he requested the Provincial Treasurer/Assessor to have the land declared in his name. It was admitted by the parties during the pre-trial that this affidavit was the basis of the transfer of Tax Declaration No. 6686 from Emilio Restar to Flores Restar. So that from 1960 the land was declared in the name of Flores Restar (Exhibit 10). This was the first concrete act of repudiation made by Flores of the co-ownership over the land in question. x x x



Plaintiffs did not deny that aside from the verbal partition of one parcel of land in Carugdog, Lezo, Aklan way back in 1945, they also had an amicable partition of the lands of Emilio Restar in Cerrudo and Palale, Banga Aklan on September 28, 1973 (exhibit “20”). If they were able to demand the partition, why then did they not demand the inclusion of the land in question in order to settle once and for all the inheritance from their father Emilio Restar, considering that at that time all of the brothers and sisters, the eight heirs of Emilio Restar, were still alive and participated in the signing of the extra-judicial partition?



Also it was admitted that Flores died only in 1989. Plaintiffs had all the chances (sic) to file a case against him from 1960, or a period of 29 years when he was still alive, yet they failed to do so. They filed the instant case only on January 22, 1999, almost ten (10) years after Flores’ death.



From the foregoing evidence, it can be seen that the adverse possession of Flores started in 1960, the time when the tax declaration was transferred in his name. The period of acquisitive prescription started to run from this date. Hence, the adverse possession of Flores Restar from 1960 vested in him exclusive ownership of the land considering the lapse of more than 38 years. Acquisitive prescription of ownership, laches and prescription of the action for partition should be considered in favor of Flores Restar and his heirs. "

source: http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/161720.htm

2) "Even assuming that the donation propter nuptias is void for failure to comply with formal requisites, it could still constitute a legal basis for adverse possession. With clear and convincing evidence of possession, a private document of donation may serve as basis for a claim of ownership. In Pensader v. Pensader we ruled that while the verbal donation under which the defendant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the lands in question is not effective as a transfer of title, still it is a circumstance which may explain the adverse and exclusive character of the possession. (Underscoring ours)"

source: http://elibrary.supremecourt.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12224134821105136944

3) "“To our mind, it is not necessary, in cases of this nature, to present tax declarations and tax receipts of the land in question. All that the law mandates is proof of “open, continuous, peaceful and adverse possession” which appellee has convincingly established. Repeatedly, the fact of possession is hammered into the record by appellee’s testimony on cross-examination by appellant. Thus:

ASST. PROV’L. PROS. CRISOSTOMO:

Q: You said that you bought this land from Marcial Listana, and you are referring us to this deed of sale?

WITNESS:

A: Yes, sir.

Q: This land is located at Maramba?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Since when did Marcial Listana begin possessing this land?

A: Since 1939.

Q: What was Marcial Listana doing on the land?

A: He was planting palay and sometimes corn.

Q: In what concept was he possessing the land?

A: In the concept of owner, openly, continuously, adversely, notoriously and exclusively.

Q: Do you know whether there are disputes involving the boundaries of the land?

A: No, sir.

Q: Are there also persons claiming adverse ownership and possession of the land?

A: No, sir.

Q: Does this land encroach any road, river or stream?

A: No, sir.

Q: Is this part of a military reservation, public park, watershed or the government’s forest zone?

A: No, sir.

Q: Have you paid all the taxes on the land?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What about the cadastral costs?

A: I also paid the same.

Q: What do you do with the land now?

A: I planted palay during rainy season.

Q: How many cavans of palay do you harvest every agricultural season?

A: I get 40 cavans of palay every harvest season but sometimes more and sometimes less, during summer month I plant corn and harvest about 8 cavans of unhusked corn.

Q: If and when this land will be titled, in whose name would you like the title to be?

A: In our names, my wife and myself.

PROSECUTOR CRISOSTOMO:

That is all.”"

source: http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/116372.htm

dude,

i'll get the definition of paras. baka bukas o makalawa.

for the meantime you could get an idea kung ano ang adverse possession from the cases i cited.

thank you po attorney. meron pang kwento ung definition. parang comics he he

^sana kinuwento mo na siya diba. hehehe