^
+ Follow FORCIBLE ENTRY Tag
Array
(
    [results] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 374621
                    [Title] => Undelivered
                    [Summary] => 






The execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale of land constitutes a constructive or symbolic delivery of possession of said land to the buyer. But this is only a prima facie presumption which is destroyed when delivery of actual possession is not effected because of a legal impediment. This is illustrated in this case between Manny and Linda.

[DatePublished] => 2006-12-12 00:00:00 [ColumnID] => 133340 [Focus] => 0 [AuthorID] => 1804883 [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison [SectionName] => Opinion [SectionUrl] => opinion [URL] => ) [1] => Array ( [ArticleID] => 333666 [Title] => Possession, not occupation [Summary] => In forcible entry cases, the person filing the action must prove prior possession of the premises until he is deprived thereof. The only issue in this proceedings is: who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises; that is possession de facto (possession in fact), not possession de jure (possession as a matter of right). How is prior possession acquired? Must there be actual, physical occupation of every square inch of the property? This is one of the issues raised in this case.
[DatePublished] => 2006-04-27 00:00:00 [ColumnID] => 133340 [Focus] => 0 [AuthorID] => 1804883 [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison [SectionName] => Opinion [SectionUrl] => opinion [URL] => ) ) )
FORCIBLE ENTRY
Array
(
    [results] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 374621
                    [Title] => Undelivered
                    [Summary] => 






The execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale of land constitutes a constructive or symbolic delivery of possession of said land to the buyer. But this is only a prima facie presumption which is destroyed when delivery of actual possession is not effected because of a legal impediment. This is illustrated in this case between Manny and Linda.

[DatePublished] => 2006-12-12 00:00:00 [ColumnID] => 133340 [Focus] => 0 [AuthorID] => 1804883 [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison [SectionName] => Opinion [SectionUrl] => opinion [URL] => ) [1] => Array ( [ArticleID] => 333666 [Title] => Possession, not occupation [Summary] => In forcible entry cases, the person filing the action must prove prior possession of the premises until he is deprived thereof. The only issue in this proceedings is: who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises; that is possession de facto (possession in fact), not possession de jure (possession as a matter of right). How is prior possession acquired? Must there be actual, physical occupation of every square inch of the property? This is one of the issues raised in this case.
[DatePublished] => 2006-04-27 00:00:00 [ColumnID] => 133340 [Focus] => 0 [AuthorID] => 1804883 [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison [SectionName] => Opinion [SectionUrl] => opinion [URL] => ) ) )
abtest
Are you sure you want to log out?
X
Login

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

Get Updated:

Signup for the News Round now

FORGOT PASSWORD?
SIGN IN
or sign in with