Case Summary (G.R. No. 136438)
Trial court disposition
The Regional Trial Court (Parañaque City, Branch 259) found that the defendants had been in actual possession of the public strip and declared the defendants to have the better right of possession over the subject land except for the portion covered by petitioner’s T.C.T. No. 74430. The court ordered defendants to vacate that titled portion and gave possession to petitioner, but dismissed petitioner’s damages claim and denied attorney’s fees. The RTC found petitioner had never possessed the public land and could use Kapitan Tinoy Street for access.
Court of Appeals ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto, thereby sustaining the RTC’s findings regarding possession and the order to vacate the portion covered by T.C.T. No. 74430. The CA affirmed costs against the plaintiff-appellant (petitioner).
Issues raised in the petition for review
Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred by (1) making conclusions of fact without citing specific evidence; (2) treating the case as solely concerning petitioner’s right of way over government land; (3) holding that accion publiciana was improper; (4) concluding that a right of way does not carry possession; and (5) failing properly to resolve who had the better right of possession between the parties.
Characterization of the intervening strip as public dominion
The Court analyzed the nature of the land where the stairways were built and concluded it is property of public dominion. Quoting Article 420 of the Civil Code, the Court explained that lands intended for public use (roads, ports, and similar) or those belonging to the State for public service are outside private commerce and therefore subject to special rules. Because the strip was used as a public passageway to the highway and the stairways were constructed by DPWH for public access, the strip qualifies as property of public dominion.
Legal consequences of public dominion
The Court reiterated the established legal consequences for property of public dominion: it cannot be alienated, leased, or be the subject of private contracts; it cannot be acquired by prescription against the State; it is not subject to attachment or execution; and it cannot be burdened by voluntary easements. Citing Article 530 of the Civil Code, the Court observed that only things susceptible of appropriation may be the object of possession; property of public dominion is not susceptible of private appropriation and thus cannot confer private possession or prescriptive rights.
Application to petitioner’s claim of right of way and possession
Applying these legal principles to the facts, the Court held that petitioner could not appropriate the public strip for his exclusive right of way and could not claim possession over it. The strip’s public-use character and the DPWH’s construction of stairways indicated tolerance and public access rather than a private easement or privatized possession. Consequently, neither petitioner nor respondents could hold a private right of possession over the portion of land that constitutes public dominion (i.e., the area where the stairways were built).
Ownership and possession of the titled portion (T.C.T. No. 74430)
Although the public strip as such could not be privately possessed, the Court found that respondents’ buildings encroached upon the portion that had been exchanged to and registered in petitioner’s name as T.C.T. No. 74430. As registered owner of that titled portion, petitioner is entitled to possess the land covered
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 136438)
Procedural History
- Originating case: Civil Case No. 95-044 filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), ParaAaque City, Branch 259, in 1995.
- RTC rendered a Decision dated November 14, 1996. The dispositive portion declared the defendants to have a better right of possession over the subject land except the portion covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (T.C.T.) No. 74430, ordered defendants to vacate the portion covered by T.C.T. No. 74430 and gave possession to plaintiff, dismissed plaintiff's claim for damages and dismissed defendants' claim for attorney's fees; no pronouncement as to costs.
- Plaintiff (petitioner) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). CA issued a Decision dated December 7, 1998 in CA-G.R. CV No. 54883, affirming the RTC Decision in toto, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 136438). The Supreme Court issued its Decision on November 11, 2004, denying the petition, affirming the CA Decision with modification: neither petitioner nor respondents have a right of possession over the disputed lot where the stairways were built because it is public dominion; costs against petitioner.
Parties and Titles
- Petitioner: Teofilo C. Villarico.
- Respondents: Vivencio Sarmiento; spouses Bessie Sarmiento-Del Mundo and Beth Del Mundo; Andokas Litson Corporation; Maritesa Carinderia.
- Property identifications:
- Petitioner originally owner of a lot in La Huerta, ParaAaque City of sixty-six (66) square meters covered by T.C.T. No. 95453.
- In 1993, petitioner acquired by Deed of Exchange a 74.30 square meter portion of government-owned area, registered as T.C.T. No. 74430 in the Registry of Deeds of ParaAaque City.
- Government entity involved: Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
Core Facts
- Petitioner's lot abuts Ninoy Aquino Avenue (highway) but is separated from the highway by a strip of land belonging to the government.
- DPWH elevated the highway by four (4) meters and constructed stairways at several portions of the public strip to enable public access to the highway.
- In 1991, respondents Vivencio Sarmiento, his daughter Bessie Sarmiento and her husband Beth Del Mundo constructed a building on a portion of the government land; in November 1991 part of that building was occupied by Andokas Litson Corporation and Maritesa Carinderia.
- Petitioner alleged respondents' structures on the government land closed his right of way to Ninoy Aquino Avenue and encroached on the portion of his lot covered by T.C.T. No. 74430.
- Respondents answered, specifically denying the allegations, claiming they were issued licenses and permits by ParaAaque City to construct their buildings on the area and asserting that the subject property belonged to the government so petitioner had no right over it.
Claims and Relief Sought
- Petitioner filed for accion publiciana to recover possession and to assert his alleged right of way and right of possession over the disputed area (portion covered by T.C.T. No. 74430).
- Petitioner alleged deprivation of his right of way to Ninoy Aquino Avenue and encroachment on the portion of his property covered by T.C.T. No. 74430.
- Petitioner also claimed damages and sought attorney’s fees (the RTC dismissed the claim for damages and dismissed defendants' claim for attorney's fees).
Defendants' (Respondents') Contentions
- Respondents denied petitioner's factual allegations.
- They asserted possession based on licenses and permits issued by ParaAaque City for construction on the area.
- They contended petitioner had no right over the subject property because it belongs to the government (public land).
Trial Court Findings and Judgment
- The RTC found petitioner had never been in possession of any portion of the public land in question; defendants were the ones in actual possession of the area.
- The RTC concluded petitioner was not deprived of any right of way because he could use Kapitan Tinoy Street as an alternative passage to the highway.
- The RTC declared defendants to have the better right of possession over the subject land except for the portion covered by T.C.T. No. 74430; ordered defendants to vacate the portion covered by T.C.T. No. 74430 and gave possession to the plaintiff; dismissed plaintiff's claim for damages and dismissed the defendants' claim for attorney’s fees; made no pronouncement as to costs.
Court of Appeals Decision
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in toto by Decision dated December 7, 1998 in CA-G.R. CV No. 54883.
- The CA judgment imposed costs against the plaintiff-appellant (petitioner).