Evidence Of Possession In The Case Of Evangelista V. Santiago

"Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one may be deprived of it except when public necessity..."

Anywhere in the world, someone acquires something, whether it be money, a car, or even an idea. We can “own” many intangible and tangible items in life, but how does ownership relate to a sense and development of self? This question has been constantly answered for centuries through intelligent people like Plato, Aristotle, and Jean-Paul Sartre. However, the question has received no agreeable answer. In the end, people will agree that there is a strong and positive relationship between ownership and a sense of self because the things you own will define and develop who you are positively by exhibiting what you like, what you can and cannot do, and in the end, characterizes you, as long as you use the things you own properly.

“Any dealing with the whole of the property requires the involvement of all the co-owners. We have seen that there is a general principle that it is impossible to give a greater right than you have yourself … nemo dat quod non habet” .

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”. “From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) has still in himself the great foundation of property;...” (Locke, 1978

The concept of property has long been one of the most crucial aspects for the U.S. citizens, as it is a major part of the Constitutional, and, therefore, human rights. Although the perception and understanding of “property” have been considerably changed, especially in terms of political and philosophical vision, it still has a particular meaning for the Americans. In general, the idea of property is the question of the political thought and conceptualized thinking common for the United States. In most cases, its transformations are connected to the introduction of capitalism and related governmental decision in politics. Therefore, as any other topic, the value of property has undergone harsh debates. In particular, such important figures as James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman have developed a fundamental scope of analyses with regard to the property rights in America.

| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |

Property: The right to claim and hold property; When it has been laboured for, one encloses it for greater individual profit the profit of the community of Man, it has been laboured for – Natural means of ownership one encloses it – The process of holding legal “deed” for greater individual profit – to build investment equity and avoid poverty of waste the profit of the community of Man – Moral commitment to Human Development (Locke: 1689).

The ability to have ownership over something, tangible or not, can give a person a sense of value or superiority when comparing themselves to others. Furthermore, as humans, it is easy to desire things as one’s own and claim it, but the way something is treated differs from person to person. As a result, the material items and skills a person has ownership over provides a glimpse of his or her’s true nature.

When the topic of owning something comes up, the conversation can go two ways: one may argue that ownership is owning an object, many other people, such as Jean-Paul Sartre believe that you can own something by becoming an expert in a certain skill and knowing something thoroughly.It's possible to own an idea or a skill, such as my idea about ownership, and to own a tangible object, such as a book. The verb " to own" doesn't just mean to physically have something, it also means to know something, or to make something a part of ourselves.

The judge considered vacant possession includes the right to actual unimpeded physical enjoyment. Not any physical impediment will amount to breach the vacant possession, but it must be an impediment which substantially prevents or interferes with the enjoyment of the right of possession of a substantial part of the property.

Property has always played an important role in the life of an individual, community and country. The practical significance of the property lies in the fact that it enables us at least the necessities and amenities of the routine life if not the means of comfort. The property rights give the successor a way to overcome the sufferings and to fight the battle of their lives.

Assessment of the Statement that Property is a Power Relationship Between People Property is the right to possess, enjoy or use a determinant thing, and includes the right of excluding others from doing the same. The concept of ownership or property has no single or widely accepted definition. Like any other concept it has great weight in public discourse and the popular usage varies broadly. Property is frequently conceived as a 'bundle of rights and obligations.' Property is stressed as not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things.

The word "possess" has different meanings throughout this section. In the beginning of the line "Possessing what we still were unpossessed by," the word "possessed" refers to the way the colonists lived on, worked on, and owned the New World land. But in the second half of the line, one learns that the colonists were "unpossessed" by the land. In this context "unpossessed" means that the colonists were not consumed or overcome by a sense of responsibility to the land. In other words, it means that the colonists owned the land, but they did not have an overcoming feeling of responsibility towards it as an independent nation; they "were England's, still." In the line "Possessed by what we now no more possess," the first term possessed

On the contrary, in Bruton court’s understanding of “exclusive possession” was a relative concept. Exclusive possession granted to Mr. Bruton was found based on the fact that he was not required to “share possession with the trust, the Council or anyone else”[13] and “the trust did not retain such control”[14]. Whether the grantor possesses title or not was held to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, since LQHT in fact could not exclude the true owner (i.e. the Council) from taking possession, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the “tenant” would be “only as against the grantor and not the rest of the world”[15] and practically dependent on the contractual relationship. This has received support from later cases applying Bruton. In Islington LBC v Green[16]with similar facts to Bruton, the tenant raised an argument that the

Locke critisized this unequal distribution of possesions and ownership. He briefly summarizes this view by saying that: