04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly with absolute certainty his claimed right over the subject area. Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, as well as Section 1 of Rule 36 and Section 1, Rule 120 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, similarly state that a decision, judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall state, clearly and distinctly, the facts and the law on which it is based. Pertinently, the Court issued on January 28, 1988 Administrative Circular No. 1, which requires judges to make complete findings of facts in their decision, and scrutinize closely the legal aspects of the case in the light of the evidence presented, and avoid the tendency to generalize and to form conclusion without detailing the facts from which such conclusions are deduced.[33] Clearly, the Decision of the RTC in this case failed to comply with the aforestated guidelines. In cases such as this, the Court would normally remand the case to the court a quo for compliance with the form and substance of a Decision as required by the Constitution. In order, however, to avoid further delay, the Court deems it proper to resolve the case based on the merits.[34] "Two requisites must concur for injunction to issue: (1) there must be a right to be protected and (2) the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right."[35] Thus, it is necessary that the Court initially determine whether the right asserted by Rev. Cortez indeed exists. As earlier stressed, it is necessary that such right must have been established by him with absolute certainty. Rev. Cortez argues that he is entitled to the injunctive writ based on the right of possession (jus possesionis) by reason of his peaceful and continuous possession of the subject area since 1962. He avers that as this right is protected by law, he cannot be peremptorily dispossessed therefrom, or if already dispossessed, is entitled to be restored in possession. Hence, the mandatory injunctive writ was correctly issued in his favor. Jus possessionis or possession in the concept of an owner[36] is one of the two concepts of possession provided under Article 525[37] of the Civil Code. Also referred to as adverse possession,[38] this kind of possession is one which can ripen into ownership by prescription.[39] As correctly asserted by Rev. Cortez, a possessor in the concept of an owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it. In the same manner, the law endows every possessor with the right to be respected in his possession.[41] It must be emphasized, however, that only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession.[42] The following cannot be appropriated and hence, cannot be possessed: property of the public dominion, common things (res communes) such as sunlight and air, and things specifically prohibited by law.[43] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61257 8/13