Villarico v. Sarmiento
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Teofilo C. Villarico owned a 66-square meter lot in Parañaque City. A strip of government land separated his lot from Ninoy Aquino Avenue. Stairways were constructed by the DPWH on this government land for public access to the highway. Respondents Vivencio Sarmiento, Bessie Sarmiento-Del Mundo, Beth Del Mundo, Andok’s Litson Corporation, and Marites’ Carinderia constructed buildings on a portion of this government land. Later, petitioner acquired a 74.30 square meter portion of the same government land, registered under T.C.T. No. 74430. Procedural History: In 1995, petitioner filed an accion publiciana against respondents, alleging that their structures blocked his right of way to Ninoy Aquino Avenue and encroached upon his lot covered by T.C.T. No. 74430. Respondents denied the allegations, claiming they had permits and that petitioner had no right over the government land. The RTC ruled that respondents had a better right of possession over the subject land except for the portion covered by petitioner's T.C.T. No. 74430, ordering respondents to vacate the latter. The RTC found petitioner was not deprived of his right of way as he could use Kapitan Tinoy Street. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court erred in its findings of fact, in limiting the issue to the right of way, in concluding that accion publiciana was not the proper remedy, in stating that the existence of a right of way does not carry possession, and in not resolving the issue of better right of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its findings of fact without citation of specific evidence, and whether it erred in considering the only issue to be the right of way over government land. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that accion publiciana is not the proper remedy. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the existence of a right of way does not carry possession. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not resolving the issue of who has the better right of possession over the subject land.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 7, 1998 in CA-G.R. CV No. 54883 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that neither petitioner nor respondents have a right of possession over the disputed lot where the stairways were built as it is a property of public dominion. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issues of findings of fact, scope of issues, and right of way over government land: The Court held that the lot on which the stairways were built is a property of public dominion, intended for public use as a passageway to the highway. Properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man, meaning they cannot be alienated, leased, acquired by prescription, or burdened by voluntary easements. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right of possession over this public land, nor can it be burdened by a voluntary easement of right of way in his favor. The Court found that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents had a better right of possession over this specific portion of the subject lot. The Court, by modifying the decision, effectively addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the scope of issues and findings of fact. While the appellate court's initial focus was on the right of way, the Supreme Court's ultimate ruling clarified the status of the land and the rights of the parties concerning possession, thereby resolving the underlying dispute about the subject property. On the propriety of Accion Publiciana: The Court implicitly affirmed that accion publiciana was not the proper remedy to assert a right of way over a property of public dominion. The nature of public dominion precludes private appropriation or easements, rendering the action for recovery of possession based on such a claim inappropriate. The core issue revolved around the classification of the land and the legal implications thereof, rather than a dispute over possession of private property. On the issue of whether the existence of a right of way carries possession: The Court held that neither party had a right of possession over the public land used for stairways. As the registered owner of this specific portion, the petitioner is entitled to its possession. This aspect of the lower courts' findings was implicitly upheld by the modification of the ruling. On the issue of possession over the portion covered by T.C.T. No. 74430: While the Court ruled that neither party had a right of possession over the public land used for stairways, it acknowledged that the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the defendants' buildings were constructed on the portion of the same lot that is now covered by T.C.T. No. 74430, which is in the petitioner's name. As the registered owner of this specific portion, the petitioner is entitled to its possession. This aspect of the lower courts' findings was implicitly upheld by the modification of the ruling.
Main Doctrine
A property of public dominion, being outside the commerce of man, cannot be burdened by a voluntary easement of right of way, and thus, no right of possession can be claimed over it by a private individual.