Case Digest (G.R. No. 185091)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Education Division of Lipa City (for Paninsingin Primary School) v. Primo Mendoza and Maria Lucero, G.R. No. 185091, August 08, 2010, the Supreme Court Second Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (through the Department of Education, for Paninsingin Primary School or PPS) has occupied a 1,149-square-meter parcel in Lipa City as a public school site since 1957. The land forms part of original Transfer Certificate of Title TCT T-11410, registered in the names of respondents Primo and Maria Mendoza (the Mendozas). In 1962 the Mendozas caused consolidation and subdivision of Lots 1923 and 1925 into four lots; the subdivision plan designated Lot 4 (1,149 sq. m.) "for the City Government of Lipa," but no new title was ever issued in the city's or the Republic’s name. PPS continued in possession and built permanent improvements; tax declarations listed the lot and improvements in the name of the City Government at various times.
In November 1998 the Mendozas demanded PPS vacate; when PPS refused they filed an unlawful detainer complaint in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Lipa City on January 12, 1999. The MTCC initially dismissed the complaint on the ground of the Republic’s immunity from suit. On appeal the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City held that the complaint was not against the Republic and reversed the MTCC, but procedural motions and remands followed: the MTCC denied a motion to render judgment (saying jurisdiction passed on appeal), the RTC later remanded, and the MTCC dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The Mendozas again appealed; on June 27, 2006 the RTC (in Civil Case No. 2001-0236) found for the Mendozas and ordered PPS to vacate as registered owners had the better right of possession.
The Republic, via the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 96604. The CA, in a February 26, 2008 decision, affirmed the RTC, stressing the Torrens system’s indefeasibility of title and the imprescriptible right of a registered owner to eject occupants; it found...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the Mendozas were entitled to evict the Republic (PPS) from the subject property used as a public sc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)