Republic v. Heirs of Ontiveros
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sometime in the 1970s, the Department of Education (DepEd) built classrooms on a 1,811-square meter parcel of land in Gaddang, Aparri, Cagayan, which became the Gaddang Elementary School. The heirs of Eriberto Ontiveros and Spouses Gerardo and Daisy Ontiveros (Ontiveroses) alleged that their family patriarch, Eriberto, had only allowed DepEd to build temporary structures and later demanded rent or purchase of the property. Despite demands, the Ontiveroses claimed they were deprived of their property without compensation. Procedural History: The Ontiveroses filed a complaint for recovery of possession against DepEd. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of DepEd, finding that the Ontiveroses failed to prove their better right to possess, noting the absence of original copies of their title and demand letter. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MCTC decision, ordering DepEd to vacate and surrender possession, finding that the Ontiveroses proved ownership and a better right of possession through judicial admissions and other evidence, and that DepEd's defenses of prescription and laches had no legal basis. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by DepEd, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Petition: The Republic argued that the CA erred in ruling against it, claiming the Ontiveroses' ownership claim lacked legal basis due to failure to present original copies of their title and that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership. It also argued that prescription and laches barred the Ontiveroses' complaint, as DepEd had occupied the property openly, peacefully, adversely, and continuously since the 1970s. Alternatively, it argued that DepEd should be allowed to continue occupying the lot or buy it under Article 448, in relation to Article 546, of the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the respondents proved their better right to possess the land. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding the Complaint for recovery of possession barred by prescription and laches. Whether the Department of Education is a builder in good faith entitled to invoke Article 448, in relation to Article 546, of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The February 15, 2018 Decision and August 8, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. The Department of Education is ordered to vacate the lot subject of this case and surrender its possession to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue of whether respondents proved their better right to possess the land: The Court held that the issue of possession is a question of fact, generally not reviewable under a Rule 45 petition, unless an exception applies. The petitioner failed to allege or prove any exception. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the CA and RTC, which were supported by substantial evidence. These included Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-56997, a relocation survey report, tax receipts and declarations in the respondents' names, a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, a demand letter, and crucial judicial admissions by the petitioner. The RTC noted that DepEd admitted the existence of TCT No. T-56997 and that it covered the land, and further admitted paragraph 3 of the Complaint stating the Ontiveroses were owners of Lot 849 covered by the title. Despite the MCTC's technicality regarding the photocopy of the title, the RTC and CA considered the totality of evidence, including judicial admissions and other documentary evidence, which were deemed adequate to prove ownership and a better right of possession. The Court reiterated that rules of procedure can be relaxed to serve greater justice, especially when rigid application would frustrate it. On the second issue of whether the Complaint is barred by prescription and laches: The Court ruled that the registered owner's right to eject is imprescriptible and never barred by laches. The Ontiveroses' possession was by mere tolerance, and they asserted their rights by demanding rent and later filing an accion publiciana when demands were unheeded. The Court clarified that laches requires the concurrence of specific elements, including conduct giving rise to the situation, delay in asserting rights despite knowledge and opportunity, lack of notice of the complainant's intent to assert rights, and injury to the defendant. The petitioner failed to present evidence proving these elements. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that laches cannot apply to registered land covered by a Torrens Title, as no title in derogation of the registered owner can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. The petitioner's occupation was merely tolerated, and the respondents did not sleep on their rights; their right to recover possession is imprescriptible. On the third issue of whether the Department of Education is a builder in good faith: The Court held that a builder in good faith must assert title to the land and be unaware of any flaw in their acquisition. The petitioner knew it had no title to the land and that its occupation was by mere tolerance of the respondents. Therefore, it could not be considered a builder in good faith and was not entitled to invoke Article 448, in relation to Article 546, of the Civil Code. The Court cited Pada-Kilario v. Court of Appeals, which held that persons occupying property by sheer tolerance of the owners are not possessors in good faith and thus cannot claim reimbursement for improvements under Article 448.
Main Doctrine
An accion publiciana is a plenary action to determine the better right to possess real property, independent of title. The registered owner's right to eject is imprescriptible and never barred by laches. A possessor by mere tolerance is not a builder in good faith and cannot invoke Article 448 of the Civil Code.