Title
Rural Bank of Anda, Inc. vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
Case
G.R. No. 155051
Decision Date
May 29, 2007
Lot 736, a public dominion property in Binmaley, Pangasinan, used as a pathway, parking, and playground, was unlawfully reclassified and leased by the municipality. Courts ruled it remains state-owned, voiding the resolutions and lease.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 155051)

Applicable Law

The ruling is grounded in the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant jurisprudence regarding public dominion and property rights.

Facts of the Case

The case revolves around Lot 736, which is a 1,300 square meter parcel located in Binmaley, Pangasinan. This lot is part of a larger Lot 3, which comprises other lots, including Imelda's Park and a waiting shed. The respondent, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Lingayen, holds title to an adjacent lot under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6375, which also indicates that the ownership of Lot 3 is under dispute between the archbishop and the Municipality of Binmaley.

In December 1997, the Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley passed two resolutions converting Lot 736 from institutional to commercial and allowing the Rural Bank of Anda to lease part of it. However, this lease was contested when the director of the seminary adjacent to Lot 736 discovered unauthorized fencing by the bank, prompting a series of discussions and a eventual civil complaint by the respondent.

Rulings in Lower Courts

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, making the preliminary injunction permanent, ordering the restoration of the original concrete fence, and awarding damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling but deleted the monetary awards, reinforcing that Lot 736 is a property of public dominion, appropriate for public use and thereby ineligible for private appropriation.

Issue

The primary issue at hand is the validity of Resolutions Nos. 104 and 105 enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley that facilitated the conversion and leasing of Lot 736.

Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court, upon review, affirmed both lower court decisions, emphasizing that neither the respondent nor the Municipality of Binmaley presented a valid title to Lot 736. Testimonies indicated its public use as a pathway, with no evidence provided by either party to substantiate claims of ownership.

The Court highlighted that public lands, characterized as property of public dominion, cannot be privately owned or

...continue reading

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