G.R. No. 181970 - De Leon vs. Public Estates Authority

Bernardo De Leon filed a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 181970) challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing his certiorari petition and his subsequent motion for reconsideration.
The Public Estates Authority (PEA), later substituted by the City of ParaAaque, filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 182678) seeking the nullification of Regional Trial Court (RTC) orders issued in Civil Case No. 93-143.
Both cases ultimately converged on the disputes regarding land ownership and possession over Lot 5155.

In January 1993, De Leon initiated a Complaint for Damages with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 135.
De Leon claimed that his family had possessed Lot 5155—a parcel measuring 11,997 square meters in San Dionisio, ParaAaque—for over 50 years, and that PEA’s actions resulted in the unlawful destruction of his fence and houses.
The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction on February 8, 1993, enjoining PEA and its representatives from disturbing De Leon’s possession until further orders, based on his bond and the risk of irreparable harm.

PEA appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing abuse of discretion in its issuance, leading to a decision by the Ninth Division that upheld the initial injunction without delving into the merits.
PEA later contended that Lot 5155 was in a salvage zone and affected by a government infrastructure project (the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road) which directly traversed the property.
The Supreme Court in PEA v. CA (2000) decisively ruled that Lot 5155 was public land and that De Leon’s long possession did not confer valid ownership or possessory rights.
The RTC subsequently issued a writ of execution (September 15, 2004) ordering De Leon and those claiming under him to vacate the property, followed by motions for reconsideration from De Leon that were denied in subsequent orders (April 29, 2005 and July 27, 2005).

De Leon filed special civil actions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to annul the RTC orders and sought a temporary restraining order, all of which were ultimately dismissed or denied.
PEA advanced its claim by filing motions including a very urgent motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition, which led the RTC to issue an order holding the motion in abeyance pending finality of earlier decisions.
Due to transfer of interests, PEA and the City of ParaAaque later filed a joint motion for substitution, resulting in the City of ParaAaque taking PEA’s place in the pending proceedings.
The entire controversy centers on whether De Leon’s claim of long possession confers lawful rights and whether PEA (or the City) is entitled to immediate possession and demolition orders to enforce the final judgment.

Whether De Leon’s alleged long-term possession of Lot 5155—claimed to be over 50 years—can confer ownership and the right to possess a parcel of land that has been declared public.

Whether the writ of execution ordering De Leon to surrender possession must be enforced strictly according to the dispositive portions of the final Supreme Court decision in PEA v. CA, or whether ejectment proceedings are the only proper remedy.

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing Orders (dated December 28, 2007 and March 4, 2008) holding in abeyance the resolution of PEA’s Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Demolition.

Whether the actions of the lower courts (RTC and CA) are in consonance with the final, executory judgment of the Supreme Court in PEA v. CA that declared the property public and dismissed De Leon’s claim of ownership.