SECOND
DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
No. 185091
REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DIVISION OF LIPA CITY (FOR
PANINSINGIN PRIMARY SCHOOL),
Petitioner, Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
-
versus
- ABAD,
MENDOZA, JJ.
PRIMO MENDOZA and
MARIA
LUCERO, Promulgated:
Respondents.
August 8, 2010
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the propriety of filing an ejectment suit
against the Government for its failure to acquire ownership of a privately
owned property that it had long used as a school site and to pay just
compensation for it.
The Facts and the Case
Paninsingin Primary School (PPS) is a public school operated by petitioner Republic of the Philippines (the Republic) through the Department of Education. PPS has been using 1,149 square meters of
land in Lipa City, Batangas since 1957 for its school. But the property, a portion of Lots 1923
and 1925, were registered in the name of respondents Primo and Maria Mendoza
(the Mendozas) under Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) T-11410.[1]
On March 27, 1962 the Mendozas caused Lots 1923 and
1925 to be consolidated and subdivided into four lots, as follows:
Lot 1 – 292 square meters in
favor of Claudia Dimayuga
Lot 2 – 292 square meters in favor of the Mendozas
Lot 3 – 543 square meters in
favor of Gervacio Ronquillo; and
As a result of subdivision, the Register of Deeds partially
cancelled TCT T-11410 and issued new titles for Lots 1 and 3 in favor of
Dimayuga and Ronquillo, respectively. Lot 2 remained in the name of the Mendozas but no new title was issued in the name of the City Government of
Lipa for Lot 4.[3] Meantime, PPS remained in possession of the property.
The Republic claimed that, while no title was issued in the name
of the City Government of Lipa, the Mendozas had relinquished to it
their right over the school lot as evidenced by the consolidation and
subdivision plan. Further, the property had long been tax-declared in the name
of the City Government and PPS built significant, permanent improvements on the
same. These improvements had also been tax-declared.[4]
The Mendozas claim, on the other
hand, that although PPS sought permission from them to use the property as a
school site, they never relinquished their right to it. They allowed PPS to occupy the property since
they had no need for it at that time. Thus, it has remained registered in their name
under the original title, TCT T-11410, which had only been partially cancelled.
On November 6, 1998 the Mendozas wrote PPS, demanding
that it vacate the disputed property.[5] When PPS declined to do so, on January 12, 1999 the Mendozas filed
a complaint with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Lipa City in
Civil Case 0002-99 against PPS for unlawful detainer with application for
temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.[6]
On July 13, 1999 the MTCC rendered a decision, dismissing the
complaint on ground of the Republic’s immunity from suit.[7] The Mendozas appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City which ruled that the
Republic’s consent was not necessary since the action before the MTCC was not
against it.[8]
In light of the RTC’s decision, the Mendozas filed with the MTCC a motion to render judgment in the case before
it.[9] The MTCC denied the motion, however, saying that jurisdiction over
the case had passed to the RTC upon appeal.[10] Later, the RTC remanded the case
back to the MTCC,[11] which then dismissed the case for insufficiency
of evidence.[12] Consequently, the Mendozas once again appealed to the RTC in Civil Case
2001-0236.
On June 27, 2006 the RTC found in favor of the Mendozas and ordered PPS to vacate the property. It held that the Mendozas had the better right of possession since they were its registered
owners. PPS, on the other hand,
could not produce any document to prove the transfer of ownership of the land
in its favor.[13] PPS moved for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 96604 on
the grounds that: (1) the Mendozas were barred by laches from recovering
possession of the school lot; (2) sufficient evidence showed that the Mendozas
relinquished ownership of the subject lot to the City Government of Lipa City
for use as school; and (3) Lot 4, Pcs-5019 has long been declared in the name
of the City Government since 1957 for taxation purposes.[14]
In a decision dated February 26, 2008, the CA affirmed the RTC
decision.[15] Upholding the Torrens system, it emphasized the indefeasibility of
the Mendozas’ registered title and the
imprescriptible nature of their right to eject any person occupying the
property. The CA held that, this
being the case, the Republic’s possession of the property through PPS should be
deemed merely a tolerated one that could not ripen into ownership.
The CA also rejected the Republic’s claim of ownership since it
presented no documentary evidence to prove the transfer of the property in
favor of the government. Moreover, even assuming
that the Mendozas relinquished their right to the property in 1957
in the government’s favor, the latter never took steps to have the title to the
property issued in its name or have its right as owner annotated on the Mendozas’ title. The CA held that, by its omissions, the Republic
may be held in estoppel to claim that the Mendozas were barred by laches
from bringing its action.
With the denial of its motion for reconsideration, the Republic
has taken recourse to this Court via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The Issue Presented
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in holding
that the Mendozas were entitled to evict the Republic from the
subject property that it had used for a public school.
The Court’s Ruling
A decree of registration is conclusive upon all persons, including
the Government of the Republic and all its branches, whether or not mentioned
by name in the application for registration or its notice.[16] Indeed, title to the land, once registered, is imprescriptible.[17] No one may acquire it from the registered owner by adverse, open,
and notorious possession.[18] Thus, to a registered owner under the Torrens system, the right to recover possession of the registered property
is equally imprescriptible since possession is a mere consequence of ownership.
Here, the existence and genuineness of the Mendozas’ title over the property has not been
disputed. While the consolidation
and subdivision plan of Lots 1923 and 1925 shows that a 1,149 square meter lot
had been designated to the City Government, the Republic itself admits that no
new title was issued to it or to any of its subdivisions for the portion that
PPS had been occupying since 1957.[19]
That the City Government of Lipa tax-declared the property and its
improvements in its name cannot defeat the Mendozas’ title. This Court has allowed tax declarations to stand as proof of
ownership only in the absence of a certificate of title.[20] Otherwise, they have little evidentiary weight as proof of
ownership.[21]
The CA erred, however, in ordering the eviction of PPS from the
property that it had held as government school site for more than 50
years. The evidence on record
shows that the Mendozas intended to cede the property to the City
Government of Lipa permanently. In fact, they allowed the city to declare the property in its name
for tax purposes. And when they sought in
1962 to have the bigger lot subdivided into four, the Mendozas earmarked Lot 4, containing 1,149 square meters, for the City
Government of Lipa. Under the circumstances,
it may be assumed that the Mendozas agreed to transfer ownership of the land to the
government, whether to the City Government of Lipa or to the Republic, way back
but never got around to do so and the Republic itself altogether forgot about
it. Consequently, the
Republic should be deemed entitled to possession pending the Mendozas’ formal transfer of ownership to it
upon payment of just compensation.
The Court holds that, where the owner agrees voluntarily to the
taking of his property by the government for public use, he thereby waives his
right to the institution of a formal expropriation proceeding covering such
property. Further, as the
Court also held in Eusebio v. Luis,[22] the failure for a long time of the owner to
question the lack of expropriation proceedings covering a property that the
government had taken constitutes a waiver of his right to gain back
possession. The Mendozas’ remedy is an action for the payment of
just compensation, not ejectment.
In Republic of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[23] the Court affirmed the RTC’s power to award just
compensation even in the absence of a proper expropriation proceeding. It held that the RTC can determine just
compensation based on the evidence presented before it in an ordinary civil
action for recovery of possession of property or its value and damages. As to the time when just compensation should be
fixed, it is settled that where property was taken without the benefit of
expropriation proceedings and its owner filed an action for recovery of
possession before the commencement of expropriation proceedings, it is the
value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling.[24]
Since the MTCC did not have jurisdiction either to evict the
Republic from the land it had taken for public use or to hear and adjudicate
the Mendozas’ right to just compensation for it, the
CA should have ordered the complaint for unlawful detainer dismissed without
prejudice to their filing a proper action for recovery of such
compensation.
WHEREFORE,
the Court partially GRANTS the petition, REVERSES the February 26, 2008
decision and the October 20, 2008 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
96604, and ORDERS the dismissal of respondents Primo and Maria
Mendoza’s action for eviction before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of
Lipa City in Civil Case 0002-99 without prejudice to their filing an action for
payment of just compensation against the Republic of the Philippines or, when
appropriate, against the City of Lipa.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice