Case Summary (G.R. No. 201405)
Factual Background
Petitioners and Liza alleged co‑ownership and continuous possession for more than fifty years of three parcels of unregistered agricultural land in Pag‑asa, Binangonan, Rizal, totaling about 10,500 square meters (the subject property). Respondent developed surrounding lands into the Binangonan Metropolis East subdivision and erected a perimeter fence that allegedly cut off petitioners’ access to the nearest public road. Petitioners sought a fifty‑square‑meter easement of right‑of‑way across respondent’s subdivision to reach Victoria Village and thence Col. Guido Street. Petitioners offered testimonial and documentary evidence, including an April 13, 1998 barangay certification and a Sinumpaang Salaysay of the late Carlos Andres recounting long possession by his family. Respondent produced the municipal assessor who testified that a tax declaration had been issued in the name of Juan Diaz and later in the name of the Blancos, and that the Provincial Assessor denied Carlos’s application for a tax declaration.
Trial Court Proceedings
Petitioners and Liza filed a Complaint for Easement of Right‑of‑Way on November 28, 2000. The RTC held that respondent did not deny the allegation of more than fifty years’ possession and deemed the allegation admitted. The RTC applied Article 1137 and declared petitioners and Liza owners by extraordinary acquisitive prescription. The court found that petitioners had met the factual prerequisites for an easement under Article 649, fixed indemnity at the market value alleged by petitioners (P600.00 per square meter), and ordered respondent to grant the fifty‑square‑meter right‑of‑way upon payment of proper indemnity. Respondent appealed.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC decision. The CA concluded that petitioners and Liza failed to sufficiently prove ownership or possession of the subject property. The CA further held that respondent in fact denied the allegation of fifty years’ possession in its Answer. Because petitioners lacked a real right or ownership over the dominant estate, the CA ruled that they could not demand an easement of right‑of‑way and ordered dismissal of Civil Case No. 00‑037‑B. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied.
The Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court
Petitioners contended that they had acquired ownership of the subject property by acquisitive prescription. They argued ordinary acquisitive prescription under Article 1134 because their possession allegedly became adverse against the Blancos when Carlos sought to register his claim with the DENR and to obtain a tax declaration in 1998, and more than ten years had lapsed thereafter. Alternatively, petitioners maintained extraordinary acquisitive prescription under Article 1137 because of open, continuous and peaceful possession for more than fifty years and other indicia of ownership. Respondent maintained that petitioners failed to prove ownership or any real right over the subject property and thus lacked personality to demand an easement under Article 649.
Issue
Whether petitioners are entitled to demand an easement of right‑of‑way from respondent.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that petitioners failed to establish ownership or any real right over the subject property and therefore lacked the legal personality to demand an easement under Article 649. The Court found no error in the CA’s reversal and dismissal of the complaint.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court first observed the statutory requirement that an easement of right‑of‑way may be demanded only by the owner of an immovable or by a person who, by virtue of a real right, may cultivate or use it, citing Article 649. The Court addressed petitioners’ alternate theories of acquisition by prescription. It held that petitioners raised ordinary acquisitive prescription for the first time on appeal and therefore could not avail themselves of that theory before the Supreme Court because issues not raised in the lower courts need not be considered on review. On the merits, the Court explained the two modes of acquisitive prescription: ordinary prescription requiring possession in good faith and just title for ten years, and extraordinary prescription requiring uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years without need of title or good faith. The Court emphasized settled doctrine that lands of the public domain are not subject to prescription unless the State has expressly declared them converted into patrimonial lands or otherwise removed them from public dominion, citing Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines and Republic v. Aboitiz. The Court found that the subject property was unregistered agricultural land and, absent proof of reclassification or conversion by the State, remained public domain and therefore not susceptible to acquisition by prescription. The Court also found no showing that Carlos had filed a claim of ownership with the DENR; his 1998 correspondence was a mere request for issuance of documents and his application for tax declaration was denied by the Provincial Assessor because a tax declaration already stood in the name of others. In consequence, petitioners’ claims to ownership under either ordinary or extraordinary prescription failed, and they could not demand the asserted easement.
Concurrence
Justice Leonen filed a separate concurring opinion agreeing to deny the petition. He concurred that under Article
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 201405)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Liwayway Andres, Ronnie Andres, and Pablo B. Francisco filed a Complaint for Easement of Right-of-Way against Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Incorporated in the Regional Trial Court, Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 68.
- The RTC rendered judgment on May 22, 2006 granting petitioners a 50-square meter right-of-way through respondent's subdivision upon payment of indemnity.
- Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87715, which reversed the RTC in a November 17, 2011 Decision and denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration in a March 27, 2012 Resolution.
- Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court challenging the CA decisions.
Key Factual Allegations
- Petitioners alleged co-ownership and continuous possession for more than fifty years of three parcels of unregistered agricultural land in Pag-asa, Binangonan, Rizal, totaling about 10,500 square meters (the subject property).
- Petitioners alleged that respondent acquired surrounding lands, developed them into Binangonan Metropolis East, and erected a concrete perimeter fence that denied petitioners access to the nearest public road, Col. Guido Street.
- Petitioners sought a right-of-way of about 50 meters traversing respondent's subdivision to reach Victoria Village and thence Col. Guido Street.
- Petitioners alleged the prevailing market value at P600.00 per square meter for purposes of indemnity.
Trial Evidence
- Pablo B. Francisco testified that he bought a 4,000-square meter portion of the subject property from Carlos Andres and that petitioners remained in possession as evidenced by an April 13, 1998 Barangay Certification.
- Petitioners submitted Carlos Andres' Sinumpaang Salaysay describing intergenerational possession since before Carlos' birth and a May 18, 1998 letter to the Municipal Assessor and the Provincial Assessor's August 5, 1998 reply.
- The Provincial Assessor's reply indicated denial of a tax-declaration request because the land was declared for taxation in the name of Juan Diaz and later in the names of the Blancos.
- Respondent presented the Municipal Assessor as its lone witness who corroborated that a tax declaration in favor of Juan Diaz and thereafter the Blancos existed, and that Carlos' application for a tax declaration was therefore referred and denied.
Lower Court Rulings
- The RTC found petitioners' allegation of more than fifty years' possession to be implicitly admitted by respondent and held that petitioners acquired ownership by extraordinary acquisitive prescription under Article 1137 of the Civil Code, entitling them to demand a right-of-way under Article 649.
- The RTC directed respondent to grant a 50-square meter right-of-way