Although both legal concepts refer to real rights acquired in relation to property, there is a substantial difference between them, since possession encompasses all three real rights over property: use, enjoyment, and disposal, whereas mere holding is limited to one or two of them.
In the words of the Colombian Civil Code, Article 775, mere holding has been understood as that which is exercised over a thing but not as owner, but in place of or on behalf of the owner. This legal provision indicates that the mere holder may enjoy the use and/or enjoyment of the thing but not its disposal, since disposal rests with the possessor. Thus, the pledge creditor, the sequestrator, the usufructuary, the user, and the person with a right of habitation are mere holders of the pledged, sequestered, or usufructuary property, or of that whose use or habitation belongs to them. This is different from possession, since, according to Article 762 of the same code, possession corresponds to the holding of property with the intent of lord and owner, whether the person is the owner or considers themselves as such. That is, use, enjoyment, and disposal are vested in the same person. It follows that whoever has possession of the property is deemed its owner, provided that no other person proves to be the owner.
Despite being similar concepts, the Supreme Court of Justice, in cassation judgment SC1716-2018, reiterated that possession is a means of acquiring ownership, but upon the fulfillment of two elements: on the one hand, the animus, understood as the intent of lord and owner, disregarding third-party ownership, and on the other hand, the corpus, understood as the occupation or material apprehension of the thing. From the foregoing, it follows that the animus is the element that separates possession from mere holding, since the latter acknowledges another's ownership. That is, the property is materially possessed and/or a benefit may be obtained from it, but it is known that it belongs to a third party, recognizing that the third element, ownership, rests with another person. In possession, it is necessary to add to that material link the will to behave as owner before others.
In practical terms, we can establish that mere holding is exercised by a tenant over the real property they occupy, since the tenant holds possession but acknowledges another's ownership, as a lease payment is made monthly. In contrast, a person residing in a house they own will have use, enjoyment, and disposal of it, since, being their property, they do not recognize any other lordship or ownership.
Regarding ownership, a fundamental issue in relation to holding and possession, it should be clarified that mere holding will never confer ownership of the property, since it acknowledges that the owner is another person. In contrast, possession is one of the means of acquiring ownership, since if the owner is unknown and a person considers themselves as such for the time stipulated by law, this material occupation, exploitation, and the power to dispose of the property may actually confer ownership.
Thus, we can conclude that the difference between both legal concepts is summarized by intent. With mere holding, only one or two of the real rights over property are held, but not disposal, because another's lordship is recognized; there is no intent of lord and owner. With possession, there is use, enjoyment, and disposal of the property.