Bishop of Kalibo v. Municipality of Buruanga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo (petitioner) filed a complaint for declaration of ownership and quieting of title over a parcel of land (Cadastral Lot No. 138) against the Municipality of Buruanga (respondent). Petitioner claimed ownership based on its possession since 1894 when the Roman Catholic Church was built on the lot. Respondent municipality constructed its municipal building on a portion of the lot in 1978 with the parish priest's permission, promising to remove it if needed. After the municipal building burned down in 1989, the church requested the municipality not to rebuild on the same site, needing the land for social action projects. The municipality proceeded with construction, prompting the lawsuit. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared petitioner as the lawful owner of Lot 138-B (church site) and respondent municipality as the lawful owner of Lots 138-A and 138-C, classifying the latter as public plaza for public use. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed petitioner's ownership of Lot 138-B but declared Lots 138-A and 138-C as property of public dominion, not owned by either party. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the CA's decision, arguing that Lots 138-A and 138-C were also its property, not public dominion, and that the cases cited by the CA were inapplicable. Petitioner claimed ownership based on Spanish law and continuous possession since 1894, asserting that the municipality's occupation was by mere tolerance. Petitioner also argued that it had acquired a vested title under Act No. 926 and Act No. 2874.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Lots 138-A and 138-C as properties of public dominion and not susceptible to private ownership; and whether petitioner acquired ownership over Lots 138-A and 138-C by virtue of Spanish law, continuous possession, or government grant under Acts No. 926 and 2874. Whether the appellate court erred in denying petitioner's motion for reception of additional evidence.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals declaring Lots 138-A and 138-C as property of public dominion, not owned by either party, is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Lots 138-A and 138-C are properties of public dominion; and on petitioner's claim of ownership based on Spanish law, possession, and government grant: The Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that Lots 138-A and 138-C are properties of public dominion and thus not susceptible to private ownership. The Court found that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence of exclusive proprietary acts or acts of dominion over these specific lots. While the church was built on Lot 138-B, the improvements on Lots 138-A and 138-C, such as the municipal building, health center, and basketball court, were not owned by the petitioner, and their use by the public was continuous and free. The Court reiterated that properties for public use, like plazas, are governed by Articles 420 and 424 of the Civil Code and cannot be appropriated by private persons or even the State. The Court found that the petitioner's reliance on the Laws of the Indies was misplaced, as these laws did not mandate that a church parcel always encompass an entire block bounded by four streets. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to establish open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of Lots 138-A and 138-C since 1894. The alleged permission granted by the parish priest for the construction of the municipal building was unsubstantiated hearsay, as the priest did not testify. The testimony of an elderly resident was also deemed insufficient to prove ownership over these specific lots. The Court held that the petitioner failed to meet the crucial requirement of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of Lots 138-A and 138-C. While Lot 138-B was demonstrably possessed by the church, the same could not be said for the other portions. The Court emphasized that possession under these laws is not a mere nominal claim but requires actual manifestation of dominion, which was absent for Lots 138-A and 138-C. The Court distinguished the cited cases, such as Bishop of Calbayog and Hacbang, by noting that in those instances, the church had indubitably established its exercise of exclusive proprietary acts over the disputed lots. In contrast, the petitioner here failed to demonstrate such acts over Lots 138-A and 138-C. The Court also found Harty v. Municipality of Victoria to be applicable, as it also involved a dispute over a public plaza where the church failed to prove ownership of the land not occupied by the church and its parish house. On the denial of the motion for reception of evidence: The Court affirmed the appellate court's denial of the motion for reception of additional evidence. The petitioner had already been given a full opportunity to present its evidence during the trial court proceedings. The Court also noted that the proposed evidence, consisting of affidavits, would not directly establish ownership of Lots 138-A and 138-C and that such evidence was never formally offered during the trial, violating Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
Lots designated as public plazas are properties of public dominion and are not susceptible to private ownership, even if occupied by a municipality or church for an extended period, unless there is clear proof of proprietary acts of dominion exercised by the claimant over the specific portions claimed.