This is comparable to granting usufructuary rights
to beneficial users of water.
The Cultural Limitation on Exploitation of Usufructuary Rights
Arguably, Israel could be viewed as an occupant choosing not to exercise its usufructuary right
. However, where laws prior to the occupation allowed for certain uses of water, Israel is under the constraints of Article 43 if it acted to change those laws.
(District Court used a particular date prior to which changes in land ownership from public to private in order to determine which date excluded that land from exercise of usufructuary right
is inappropriate); LCO III (court enumerates species used in ceded territory which may be harvested by methods used at time of treaty and modem methods for commercial and subsistence purpose in order to provide Chippewa with a modest living); Lac Courte Oreilles Band v.
(35) able with the notion of usufructuary rights
as 'incidents' of native title.
rendered the usufructuary right
to that water valueless, they have
Under RA 6657, a CLOA beneficiary is prohibited to sell, transfer or convey the right to use or any usufructuary right
over the land he acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary.
'After the usufructuary right
is established, the territorial domain will then be given a native communal title which confers a propriteoary right on it.
The city government has the usufructuary right
to use the Met for cultural purposes under an agreement with the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) that was signed in 2004.
But the memorandum of agreement between PEA and the City of Manila recognizes the latter's original usufructuary right
or the right to use the property, it added.
But he said it fails to recognise and assert the fundamental characteristics of the concept as affirmed by landmark cases from other jurisdictions and Malaysia's jurisdiction which hold that aboriginal people's rights included an interest in the land and not merely an usufructuary right
The court characterized the government's action as "an exclusive possession of plaintiffs' water-use rights for preservation of fish" and concluded that, to the extent that the plaintiffs were prevented from using water to which they would otherwise have been entitled, the government rendered the usufructuary right
to that water valueless, and thus effected a physical taking.