Title
Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. vs. Bases Conversion Development Authority
Case
G.R. No. 192896
Decision Date
Jul 24, 2013
Dream Village residents claimed ownership of a 78,466-sqm lot in Taguig, part of Fort Bonifacio, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of BCDA, stating the land is public dominion, non-alienable, and cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. COSLAP lacked jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 221641)

Background of the Dispute

Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Dream Village) claims to represent over 2,000 families that have inhabited a 78,466-square meter property in Western Bicutan, Taguig City since 1985. The land in question was originally part of the Hacienda de Maricaban and has undergone several transfers of title due to historic developments involving both the United States and Philippine governments.

Historical Overview of Property Title

Originally owned by Dolores Casal y Ochoa, the Hacienda de Maricaban, covering 2,544 hectares, was acquired by the U.S. government for military purposes, later transforming into Fort William McKinley. The subsequent titling and transfer of ownership led to the current title held by the BCDA, mandated to oversee the conversion of military reservations into civilian uses. Proclamations have designated certain lots as alienable and disposable under the law, notably Proclamation Nos. 2476 and 172, yet Dream Village contends their property is included within these proclamations.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by Dream Village

Following tensions due to perceived encroachments by the BCDA, Dream Village filed complaints with the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP), seeking recognition of their long-term occupancy and application for sales patent on their respective lots. Their key argument asserts the land is outside of BCDA's domain, thus should be treated under provisions for public land disposition.

COSLAP Resolution and Jurisdiction Challenge

In its April 2004 resolution, COSLAP determined that Dream Village’s occupied lot falls outside the BCDA’s claim, leading to instructions for the Land Management Bureau to process their patent applications. However, the BCDA contested COSLAP's jurisdiction over the case, claiming that the grounds for jurisdiction did not apply as Dream Village is a holder of a title to land of public dominion and not covered under E.O. No. 561.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon review, the Court of Appeals ruled that COSLAP had no jurisdiction to hear the case. It emphasized that the dispute’s nature—concerning private land registered under a Torrens title—was not within COSLAP's defined scope of authority, which is limited to issues involving public lands or lands governed by specific licenses. The ruling highlighted that jurisdictional questions about the lot's classification and ownership were outside COSLAP's adjudicative powers.

Supreme Court Proceedings and Findings

Dream Village sought a petition for review to the Supreme Court, raising questions about the compatibility of the appellate court’s ruling with existing laws and decisions. However, the Supreme Court upheld the CA's decision, affirming that BCDA retains indefeasible title to F

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.