Acebedo v. Director of Lands
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Bishop of Calbayog, as a corporation sole, filed a petition for confirmation and registration of title over three parcels of land (Lots 1, 2, and 3) located in Catarman, Samar, alleging open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since the Spanish regime. Procedural History: The Director of Lands and the Municipality of Catarman opposed the application. The lower court issued an order of general default against all except the oppositors. The Municipality of Catarman filed an opposition to Lot 2, later amended to include the eastern portion of Lot 1 and portions of Nalazon and Anunciacion Streets. The lower court denied the amendment to the opposition regarding Lot 1 and the streets. The lower court rendered a decision adjudicating Lot 2 to the Municipality of Catarman, declaring the eastern portion of Lot 1 and portions of Nalazon and Anunciacion Streets as public plaza and thoroughfares, respectively, and confirming the applicant's title over the remaining portion of Lot 1 and Lot 3. The Petition: The Bishop of Calbayog appealed the decision of the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether Lot 2 is a public plaza and Nalazon Street traversing Lots 1 and 2 is a public thoroughfare, and thus not subject to registration. Whether the eastern portion of Lot 1 and portions of Nalazon and Anunciacion Streets traversing Lot 1 are public plaza and thoroughfares, respectively, and not subject to registration. Whether the applicant has established title to the entire Lot 1 and Lot 3.
Ruling
The appealed decision is modified. Lot 2, being a public plaza, and Nalazon Street, traversing Lot 1 and Lot 2, being a public thoroughfare, are not subject to registration. The title of the Bishop of Calbayog with respect to the entire area of Lot 1, except the portion covered by Nalazon Street, and to Lot 3, is confirmed and ordered registered in his name. In all other respects, the decision appealed from is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the status of Lot 2 and Nalazon Street: The Court held that Lot 2 is a public plaza and Nalazon Street is a public thoroughfare, and therefore not subject to registration. While Nalazon Street was initially a trail, it was opened and improved by the municipality in 1910 and continuously used as such by the townspeople without objection from church authorities. The planting of acacia trees by the municipality in 1920 further evidenced its public character. The street traverses the entire length of the poblacion and serves not only the church but also the public school and general hospital, indicating its use by the general public. Regarding Lot 2, the Court found no evidence of exclusive ownership or possession by either the Church or the municipality. Although there were structures like camarins on the lot, it was also used as a playground and school garden by students from the adjoining public school. The municipality also used it for town fiestas by constructing temporary sheds for vendors, and fenced it for planting camotes, though the Church objected to the fence. The continuous use by residents, coupled with the lack of clear proof of exclusive possession by either party, led to the presumption that Lot 2 was segregated as a public plaza upon the municipality's founding, consistent with the ruling in Harty v. Municipality of Victoria. The Court emphasized that the municipality, as administrator of public property, could use the lot for public purposes. On the status of the eastern portion of Lot 1 and portions of Nalazon and Anunciacion Streets within Lot 1: The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that these portions are not subject to registration. The municipality was declared in default with respect to Lot 1, and its amended opposition was denied. The eastern portion of Lot 1 is an empty space except for concrete benches and a path leading to the church, which appears to be an extension of Anunciacion Street. However, this path was mainly opened for the benefit of parishioners, leading to a religious monument and the church entrance, and was not planted with acacia trees like Nalazon Street. The use of this eastern portion for religious functions, without seeking municipal permits, further indicated its private use by the Church. While a bandstand was constructed there, it stood for only three years, and there was no evidence of continued municipal use. The Court found the explanation for the religious monument's presence as a mere religious sentiment, not a basis for public dedication. Therefore, the eastern portion of Lot 1 and the path within it were not established as public plaza or thoroughfare. On the applicant's title to the remaining portion of Lot 1 and Lot 3: The Court confirmed the applicant's title over the remaining portion of Lot 1 and over Lot 3. The evidence showed that the permanent improvements on Lot 1, including the church, belfry, convent, academy building, and nun's residence, were located on the western portion, which was confirmed to the applicant. Lot 3 was also confirmed to the applicant, with no opposition presented regarding its status. The Court found that the applicant had established sufficient proof of ownership and possession for these specific areas, distinguishing them from the portions declared public.
Main Doctrine
A parcel of land used continuously by the public as a plaza or thoroughfare, even if declared for taxation purposes by a private entity or previously occupied by private structures, may be presumed to be public property segregated for public use upon the founding of the municipality, especially when neither the private entity nor the municipality can present clear proof of exclusive ownership or possession for an appreciable period.