G.R. No. 217703 - Republic vs. Abarca

The petitioner, Republic of the Philippines represented by the Regional Director of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) – Region II, claimed ownership over a parcel of land, specifically Lot 1, TS 1028, covering 21,646 square meters located in Alibagu, Ilagan, Isabela.
The land was originally designated for use as a school site for the Alibagu Elementary School (AES), which has been occupying the property since the 1960s.

In January 1983, Severo Abarca was allowed by the AES Principal and the President of the school’s Parents-Teachers Association (PTA) to lease a one-hectare portion of the school property for a period of 10 years, starting January 8, 1983.
As consideration, Severo paid an amount of P200.00 per year to support improvements in the school.
Upon expiration of the lease in 1993, despite multiple demands to vacate, Severo and his children (the other respondents) continued to occupy the area on which they had constructed their respective houses.

The petitioner argued that as the owner by virtue of the Regalian doctrine, the land is part of the public domain and therefore belongs to the State.
It further maintained that the respondents’ occupancy, even though stemming from a lease in 1983, did not confer possession rights after the lease expired, especially given that the property was reserved as a school site.
The petitioner asserted that the respondents themselves admitted to applying for a sales patent on a portion of Lot 1, implying recognition of the State’s ownership.
Testimonies and survey reports were presented to identify the property conclusively as part of the leased area.

The respondents contended that they did not claim ownership over the school site and that they returned the leased property in 1993.
They further argued that the portion they occupied was actually outside the proper boundaries of the school site, claiming possession since as far back as 1970.
They questioned the petitioner’s identification of the boundaries and the exact location of the leased parcel, arguing that such deficiency weakens the claim of recovery of possession.

On January 2, 2013, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner by affirming its status as the undisputed owner of Lot 1, TS 1028, citing its public land character and the Regalian doctrine.
The RTC ordered the respondents to vacate the leased premises, remove constructed houses and other improvements, and pay rental charges and litigation expenses.

In its March 12, 2015 Decision, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC ruling.
The CA found that the petitioner failed to provide a positive act (e.g., a presidential proclamation) to clearly establish the identification and boundaries of the portion leased to Severo, thereby weakening its claim of ownership.
The appellate court emphasized that negative evidence (denial of the return of the leased property) could not counter the respondents’ evidence that they had returned the property.

The central issue involves whether the petitioner has a better right of possession over the subject property.
It ultimately comes down to the burden of proof resting on the petitioner to overcome the presumption of State ownership by producing incontrovertible evidence that the land is alienable and disposable.

Whether the petitioner established its ownership of the subject property by sufficiently proving that the land is part of the State’s public domain under the Regalian doctrine.
Whether a positive act, such as a presidential proclamation or similar governmental declaration, was necessary to delineate the boundaries and identify the leased land with accuracy.
Whether the respondents’ claim that they had returned the leased portion of the property and their long-term possession (allegedly since 1970) was adequately supported by evidence.
How the evidentiary burden should be allocated, particularly concerning the petitioner's failure to produce conclusive proof of alienability and the respondents’ reliance on negative evidence and tax declarations.