Case Digest (G.R. No. 194336)
Facts:
On July 1, 2002, Pilar Development Corporation filed a Complaint for accion publiciana with damages alleging that respondents built shanties without its consent on its 5,613-square-meter parcel at Daisy Road, Phase V, Pilar Village Subdivision, Almanza, Las Piñas City, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 481436. The Las Piñas RTC, Branch 197 dismissed the complaint on May 30, 2007, finding that the portion occupied lies within the three-meter strip along Mahabang Ilog Creek reserved for public easement; the Court of Appeals affirmed on March 5, 2010 and denied reconsideration on October 29, 2010.
Issues:
- Does the three-meter strip along Mahabang Ilog Creek form part of the public dominion such that petitioner cannot recover possession?
- Who is the proper party to institute recovery or enforcement actions with respect to the three-meter strip: the Republic of the Philippines through the OSG or the local government of Las Piñas City?
Ruling:
The petition was denied and the Court affirmed the RTC and CA decisions dismissing petitioner’s complaint. The Court held that the three-meter strip is a public easement forming part of the public dominion and that petitioner cannot enforce possessory rights against respondents; it also held that both the Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, and the Las Piñas City government may bring actions depending on the relief sought, and that petitioner may seek mandamus to compel the LGU to enforce eviction and relocation under R.A. 7279.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that an easement is a real right that may limit an owner's use of land and that Art. 630 and Art. 635 of the Civil Code govern ownership limited by easements, while special laws and regulations control easements for public use. DENR A.O. No. 99-21 requires demarcation and annotation of the three-meter strip along urban streams; P.D. 1216 treats such strips in subdivisions as non-alienable open space and P.D. 1067 (Art. 51) subjects banks and a three-meter zone in urban areas to public easement and forbids structures therein, so the title reservation and statutes preclude petitioner’s exclusive possession. The Court further explained that actions for reversion of public lands lie with the OSG under C.A. No. 141, while the LGU may enforce eviction and relocation duties under R.A. 7279, permitting petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus to compel LGU action.
Doctrine:
- The owner of a servient estate retains ownership subject to easements and must use the property so as not to affect the exercise of the easement, per Art. 630.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)