G.R. No. 152115 - Usero vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152115)

Trial, appellate, and Supreme Court stages

Petitioners filed separate forcible entry complaints in Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Las Piñas: Civil Case No. 5242 (Samela) and Civil Case No. 5243 (Usero). MTC Branch 79 rendered judgment for each petitioner ordering removal of improvements, payment of P1,000 monthly use compensation (from filing to vacation), and P10,000 attorney’s fees. The Polinars appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 253, which reversed both MTC decisions and dismissed the complaints, finding the strip to be a creek and public domain. Petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC. The consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court followed; the Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the CA decisions in toto.

Governing legal standards and jurisdictional limits

Rule 45 review and scope of Supreme Court inquiry

The Court emphasized the limited scope of review under Rule 45: the Supreme Court reviews errors of law and will not disturb factual findings of the courts below unless such findings are unsupported by evidence or are based on a clear misapprehension of facts. The pivotal issue presented was factual — whether the disputed strip was private property of petitioners or a creek forming part of the public domain — thus invoking the Rule 45 limitation.

Trial evidence and forensic survey

Evidence presented by parties before trial courts

Petitioners relied chiefly on their Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), a plan of consolidation/subdivision survey, tax declaration in Samela’s name, and affidavits (including from Usero and an adjacent owner). The Polinars presented: their own TCT; barangay certification attesting to the existence of a creek; a certification from the Second Manila Engineering District, NCR–DPWH, stating that the western portion of Pilar Village is bounded by a tributary of Talon Creek; boundary and index maps of Pilar Village showing a surrounding creek; and photographs depicting abundant water lilies in the disputed strip. In Usero’s case a relocation survey by a licensed geodetic engineer (showing a 43-square-meter encroachment by the Polinars) was also produced in compliance with court order.

Trial and appellate findings on the nature of the strip

Factual findings validated by documentary and photographic proof

The RTC and Court of Appeals found that the disputed strip was in fact a creek — public water — supported by a combination of documentary and photographic evidence: the barangay certification, the DPWH certification that a tributary of Talon Creek bounds the area, and photographs showing thriving water lilies consistent with a permanent stream. The Court also noted that petitioners’ TCTs and tax declaration did not supply adequate boundary descriptions for the portions facing the disputed strip; thus petitioners failed to prove a private ownership claim over the strip.

Applicable substantive law on public water and ownership

Public dominion, Civil Code Article 420, and Torrens registration limits

The Court applied the doctrine that property is either public domain or private ownership. Article 420 of the Civil Code was invoked to classify rivers, torrents, canals and similar features as property of public dominion. The Court treated a creek as “of similar character” and thus part of the public domain, a classification that makes it non-susceptible to private ownership. The Court reiterated the settled Torrens-system principle — that public water, such as a creek forming part of the public domain, cannot be registered under the Torrens system in an individual’s name — citing precedents to that effect.

Legal effects for the Polinars’ rip-rapping and improvements

Lawful rip-rapping to prevent erosion and compensation implications

Because the strip was held to be public domain (a creek), petitioners could not legally claim ownership of that portion and therefore could not enjoin or demand compensation from the Polinars for rip-rapping or for the improvements made to protect their property. The Court held that the Polinars could maintain the protective improvements subject to applicab

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152115)

Case Caption, Docketing and Nature of Petition

Two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court: G.R. No. 152115 (Nimfa Usero) and G.R. No. 155055 (Lutgarda R. Samela), both decided January 26, 2005.
Decision in the Supreme Court penned by Justice Corona, J., with Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concurring.
The petitions assail the decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64718 (Usero) and CA-G.R. SP No. 64181 (Samela).

Parties and Properties Involved

Petitioners:
- Lutgarda R. Samela — owner of Lot 1, Block 5, Golden Acres Subdivision, Barrio Almanza, Las Piñas City.
- Nimfa Usero — owner of Lot 2, Block 5, Golden Acres Subdivision, Barrio Almanza, Las Piñas City.
Private respondents:
- Spouses Herminigildo and Cecilia Polinar — registered owners of a parcel at No. 18 Anahaw St., Pilar Village, Las Piñas City; their property lies behind the lots of petitioners.
Geographical relations:
- A low-level strip of land, with a stagnant body of water filled with floating water lilies, is situated between the lots of the parties.
- The perimeter wall of Pilar Village Subdivision abuts and is perpendicular to the lot of petitioner Samela, the lot of the Polinars and the low-level strip of land.
- The Polinars’ property is described as being at the edge of a creek or tributary bordering the western portion of Pilar Village.

Factual Background Leading to Dispute

Recurrent flooding:
- During storms or heavy rains the water in the low-level strip rises and the strong current causes considerable damage to the house of respondents Polinars.
Acts by respondents Polinar:
- On July 30, 1998, the Polinars erected a concrete wall on the bank of the low-level strip about three meters from their house and rip-rapped the soil on that portion of the strip.
- The Polinars believed the strip to be part of a creek and, despite petitioners’ demands to stop construction, proceeded with improvements.
- For peace, the Polinars offered to pay for the land claimed by petitioners, but parties failed to settle differences.

Procedural History — Trial Courts

Complaints:
- November 9, 1998 — Petitioners Samela and Usero separately filed complaints for forcible entry against the Polinars at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas City.
- Samela’s case docketed as Civil Case No. 5242; Usero’s as Civil Case No. 5243.
Civil Case No. 5242 (Samela) — Metropolitan Trial Court decision (March 22, 1999):
- Trial court rendered judgment in favor of Samela ordering:
  - Defendants to vacate and remove improvements at their expense.
  - Defendants to pay plaintiff P1,000.00 a month as reasonable compensation for use of the portion encroached from filing until final vacation.
  - Defendants to pay plaintiff P10,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees plus costs of suit.
- Evidence adduced by Samela at trial included copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), plan of consolidation, subdivision survey, tax declaration in her name, and affidavits (including petitioners and a neighbor Justino Gamela).
- Evidence presented by Polinars included their own TCT; barangay certification as to existence of the creek; certification from the district engineer (western portion of Pilar Village bound by tributary of Talon Creek); boundary and index map of Pilar Village showing village surrounded by a creek and Polinar property at edge; and photographs showing the strip filled with water lilies.
Civil Case No. 5243 (Usero) — Metropolitan Trial Court order (February 29, 2000) and decision (August 25, 2000):
- Court ordered parties to commission a professional geodetic engineer to conduct a relocation survey and submit report.
- Licensed geodetic engineer Mariano Flotilde conducted relocation survey (affidavit dated April 24, 2000) and reported:
  - Executed relocation survey of Lot 2, Block 5, (LRC) PCS-4463 covered by TCT No. T-29545 registered in name of Nimfa O. Usero.
  - No existing creek on boundary of said lot according to his survey.
  - Found encroachment on the lot by Spouses Herminigildo and Cecilia Polinar with an area of FORTY THREE (43) SQUARE METERS.
  - Affidavit complied with Court Order dated February 23, 2000 of Metropolitan Trial Court, Las Piñas City, Branch LXXIX.
- Metropolitan Trial Court decided in favor of Usero (August 25, 2000) ordering:
  - Defendants to vacate and remove improvements at their expense.
  - Defendants to pay plaintiff P1,000.00 a month as reasonable compensation for portion encroached from filing until final vacation.
  - Defendants to pay plaintiff P10,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees plus costs of suit.

Procedural History — Regional Trial Court Appeals

Polinars appealed both Metropolitan Trial Court decisions to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas, Branch 253; appeals heard separately.
RTC decision in Civil Case No. 5242 (Samela) — December 20, 2000:
- RTC reversed the Municipal Trial Court decision and dismissed the complaint.
- RTC found existence of a creek between the respective properties and held that the portion forms part of public dominion; thus plaintiff cannot claim lawful ownership or stop defendants from rip-rapping bank of the creek to protect property from erosion.
- RTC held that defendants-appellants are not duty bound to