G.R. No. 1002 - People vs. Mendezona

Petitioner: Frisco F. Domalsin, who claims to be the lawful owner and possessor of a parcel of land.
Respondents: Spouses Juanito and Amalia Valenciano, who are accused of unlawfully entering and constructing on the disputed area.

The disputed property is described as a parcel of land located at Sitio Riverside, Camp 3, Tuba, Benguet.
More precisely, the subject of the litigation is a portion of the road‐right‐of‐way along Kennon Road, which is integral to public dominion.
The area acquired by petitioner through a Deed of Waiver and Quitclaim from Castillo Binay-an was originally intended for purposes related to accessing sand and gravel along the Bued River.

Domalsin asserted his possession of the land dating back to 1979.
In 1983, he declared the property for taxation purposes (Tax Declaration No. 9540) and introduced various improvements (leveling, excavation, riprapping, a private road, and planting economic vegetation).
Despite the destruction of his house during the 1990 earthquake, petitioner argued that his continuous tax payments and consequent actions evidenced that he had not abandoned the property, but rather suffered a fortuitous, uncontrollable loss.

On August 1, 1998, respondents allegedly entered the premises and began constructing a building without petitioner's consent and without the necessary permit from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
Petitioner protested the unauthorized construction and demanded that the respondents desist from further work.
In response, petitioner resorted to filing a complaint for forcible entry with an accompanying prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction.
Multiple Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) were issued by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in August and September 1998 to stop the construction.

The MCTC of Tuba-Sablan issued its decision on November 20, 2000, declaring petitioner as the actual possessor of the lot and ordering respondents to vacate, along with other related orders.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet, affirmed that decision on January 23, 2002, emphasizing factors such as continuous tax payments and prompt objection by petitioner as evidence against any claim of abandonment.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a decision dated August 20, 2002, reversed the lower rulings by focusing on the nature of the subject property—being a road‐right‐of‐way part of public dominion—and on the respondents’ actual possession versus petitioner's prior possession.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on May 20, 2003.

Petitioner alleged that the lower courts erred in holding that he abandoned the property and that his right as the prior possessor was disregarded in favor of the respondents’ actual possession.
He argued that the destruction of his house by the earthquake did not constitute abandonment, emphasizing his continuous tax payments and his prompt objection to the construction initiated by the respondents.
The issue of timing in filing the forcible entry case—within the one-year prescriptive period after the unlawful or stealthy act—was also raised.

Whether petitioner Domalsin abandoned the property by failing to rebuild his house after the earthquake, thereby forfeiting his prior possession.
Whether the respondents’ act of constructing a building on the disputed area amounted to a valid assertion of actual possession despite petitioner's prior occupancy and improvements.
Whether the contested property, being a portion of the road‐right‐of‐way (and hence part of the public dominion), can be privately possessed or owned by either party.
Whether the lower courts erred in emphasizing the respondents’ actual current possession over the petitioner’s prior possession in a forcible entry action.
Whether the petitioner's action for forcible entry was timely and proper under the rules regarding the unlawful deprivation of possession and the prescribed one-year period.