Usero v. Polinar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Lutgarda R. Samela and Nimfa Usero own adjacent lots in Las Piñas City. The respondents, spouses Herminigildo and Cecilia Polinar, own a property behind the petitioners' lots. A strip of land, characterized by stagnant water and water lilies, lies between these properties. During heavy rains, this strip floods, causing damage to the Polinars' house. In response, the Polinars constructed a concrete wall and rip-rapped the bank of this strip, asserting it was part of a creek. The petitioners claimed ownership of this strip and demanded the Polinars cease construction, leading to a dispute. Procedural History: The petitioners filed separate forcible entry complaints against the Polinars in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Las Piñas City. The MTC ruled in favor of Samela, ordering the Polinars to vacate and pay compensation. In Usero's case, the MTC ordered a relocation survey, which indicated an encroachment by the Polinars, and subsequently ruled in Usero's favor, ordering the Polinars to vacate and pay compensation. The Polinars appealed both decisions to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC reversed the MTC decisions, dismissing the complaints and finding that the disputed strip was a creek and part of the public domain, thus allowing the Polinars to maintain their improvements. The petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decisions. These consolidated petitions for review on certiorari followed. The Petition: Petitioners Nimfa Usero and Lutgarda R. Samela filed these consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the decisions of the Court of Appeals. The core issue presented is whether the disputed strip of land is private property of the petitioners or part of the public domain as a creek. The petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in its factual findings and legal conclusions, particularly regarding the nature of the disputed strip of land. They seek a reversal of the CA's affirmation of the RTC's dismissal of their complaints.
Issue(s)
Whether the disputed strip of land is private property of the petitioners or part of a creek belonging to the public domain. Whether the spouses Polinar are liable for forcible entry and for compensation for the use of the disputed strip.
Ruling
The consolidated petitions are denied. The assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of ownership of the disputed strip of land: The Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals that the disputed strip of land is a creek and part of the public domain. This conclusion was supported by substantial evidence, including a barangay certification, a certification from the Second Manila Engineering District, DPWH, stating the area is bounded by a tributary of Talon Creek, and photographs showing water lilies thriving in the strip, indicating a permanent stream of water. The Court found the petitioners' evidence, primarily their Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), insufficient as the descriptions on the TCTs were incomplete regarding the boundaries where the creek was located. The Court reiterated that property is either of public dominion or private ownership, and Article 420 of the Civil Code explicitly lists canals, rivers, and torrents, along with "others of similar character," as property of public dominion. A creek falls under "others of similar character" and is not susceptible to private ownership. Being public water, a creek cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual. Therefore, the petitioners could not lay claim to lawful ownership of the disputed portion. On the issue of forcible entry and compensation: Since the disputed strip of land was determined to be part of the public domain and not private property of the petitioners, the petitioners could not establish a lawful claim of ownership over it. Consequently, the spouses Polinar were not liable for forcible entry, as they did not dispossess the petitioners of their private property. Furthermore, as the strip is public water, the Polinar spouses were not duty-bound to pay compensation for the use of the same. The Court recognized their right to utilize the rip-rapped portion of the creek to prevent erosion and protect their property from damage, subject to existing laws, rules, and regulations.
Main Doctrine
A strip of land identified as a creek, being part of public dominion, cannot be registered under the Torrens System and is not susceptible to private ownership. Consequently, actions to claim ownership or compensation for its use are dismissed.