Department of Education vs. Caleda

A registered owner's right to recover possession of her property is not barred by the government's occupation of the land for public use if the occupation was without the owner's consent and without a valid expropriation proceeding. The owner's prompt action to assert her rights negates a finding of laches.

The dispute involves a 10,637-sq.m. parcel of registered rice land (Lot No. 7421) in Solana, Cagayan. Respondent Caleda purchased it in 2014 from the heirs of the registered owner. Upon visiting the land, she found it occupied by the Solana Fresh Water Fishery School (SFWFS), a school under DepEd's supervision. DepEd refused to vacate despite demands, claiming it had purchased the lot decades earlier.

• Filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Solana, Cagayan (Civil Case No. 1007).
• MCTC ruled in favor of Caleda on January 10, 2020, ordering DepEd to vacate.
• Appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City (Civil Case No. 9035).
• RTC affirmed the MCTC decision on November 5, 2021.
• Elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Review (CA-G.R. SP No. 172008).
• CA affirmed the RTC decision on September 27, 2023, and denied reconsideration on March 6, 2024.
• Elevated to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

• Caleda is the absolute owner of Lot No. 7421, which is a portion of a larger parcel covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4975 registered in the name of the heirs of Bueno Gallebo.
• She acquired it via an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights and Sale dated November 21, 2014.
• Upon inspection, she found the lot occupied by SFWFS, which is under DepEd's direct supervision.
• DepEd claimed ownership based on a Deed of Sale dated July 7, 1965, purportedly between the original owner (Bueno Gallebo) and the Director of Vocational Schools (predecessor of SFWFS).
• Evidence showed the 1965 Deed of Sale described and covered Lot No. 7420 (14,966 sq.m.), not Lot No. 7421 (10,637 sq.m.).
• DepEd's own witness (the school principal) admitted SFWFS did not own Lot No. 7421 and that no permanent structures stood on it, only agricultural improvements like rice fields and fishponds.
• Caleda sent demand letters to vacate starting in January 2015 and filed her complaint in March 2016.

• Public Use Doctrine: The government cannot be ejected from property already devoted to public use (a public school). The owner's sole remedy is to seek just compensation via eminent domain.
• Laches: Caleda and her predecessors-in-interest were guilty of laches for failing to assert their rights for decades while SFWFS occupied and developed the land.
• Implied Acquiescence: The owner's long inaction constituted implied consent to the taking, barring ejectment.

• Better Right of Possession: As the registered owner who purchased the lot from the titled owners, she has a superior right to possess it.
• No Consent or Expropriation: DepEd occupied the land without her consent and without initiating expropriation proceedings, violating her right to due process.
• Inapplicable Jurisprudence: The cases cited by DepEd (e.g., National Transmission Corp. v. Bermuda, Republic v. Mendoza) are distinguishable because they involved situations where the owner's conduct showed consent or acquiescence.
• No Laches: She acted promptly upon discovering the occupation by sending demand letters and filing suit within two years of her purchase.

• Procedural Issues: N/A.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the CA erred in affirming that Caleda has a better right to possess Lot No. 7421.
  2. Whether DepEd's occupation of the lot for public use bars Caleda's action for recovery of possession.
  3. Whether Caleda's claim is barred by laches.

• Procedural: N/A.
• Substantive:
  1. No error. The SC affirmed the factual finding, supported by preponderance of evidence, that Caleda proved her ownership through a valid sale from the registered owners. The 1965 Deed of Sale covered a different lot (Lot No. 7420).
  2. It does not bar the action. The doctrine that the government cannot be ejected from property devoted to public use applies only when there is express or implied acquiescence from the owner (e.g., long inaction amounting to estoppel). Here, Caleda did not consent; she promptly asserted her rights. Furthermore, DepEd is not a public utility corporation vested with the power of eminent domain, and it never initiated expropriation.
  3. No laches. Caleda acted within a reasonable time (less than two years from purchase to filing suit). Moreover, the doctrine of laches is inapplicable to registered land under the Torrens System, where ownership is indefeasible and imprescriptible.

• Accion Publiciana — A plenary action to recover the better right of possession, filed in the RTC when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. Ownership may be provisionally determined to resolve the issue of possession.
• Doctrine on Ejectment of Government from Property Devoted to Public Use — The government may not be ejected if it occupied the property with the express or implied consent/acquiescence of the owner (e.g., owner stood by idly during construction). Absent such consent, the owner may recover possession. The remedy for a taking without consent is an action for recovery or, if return is infeasible, an action for just compensation—but only after a proper expropriation proceeding is initiated.
• Laches and Registered Land — Laches cannot be invoked against a registered owner of land under the Torrens System. No title to registered land in derogation of the registered owner's title can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

• "A public institution with the power of eminent domain may not be ejected from a property devoted to public use, even without a title, if there is an express or implied acquiescence—in the form of delay in asserting rights—from the owner of the property."
• "The Court has consistently held that laches cannot apply to registered land covered by a Torrens Title because under the Property Registration Decree, no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession."

• National Transmission Corporation v. Bermuda Development Corporation — Cited by DepEd; distinguished by the SC. That case involved a public utility corporation with eminent domain power, and the owner's inaction during construction implied acquiescence.
• Republic v. Mendoza — Cited by DepEd; distinguished. There, the owners' conduct (allowing tax declarations, earmarking the lot in a subdivision plan) showed a voluntary intent to donate the property to the government.
• Manila Railroad Company v. Paredes — Cited to establish the two-condition test for barring ejectment: (1) the institution must have the power of eminent domain, and (2) it occupied the land with the owner's express or implied consent.
• Heirs of Mariano v. City of Naga — Cited to clarify that an owner cannot be forced to accept just compensation in lieu of recovery of possession if no expropriation proceeding exists. The government's taking must be in the exercise of eminent domain.
• Department of Education v. Heirs of Banguilan — Cited to reinforce that laches does not apply to registered land and that DepEd's possession without proof of ownership is merely by tolerance.

• Civil Code, Article 428 — The right of ownership includes the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law. The right to possess (jus possidendi) is an attribute of ownership.
• Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529), Section 47 — Provides that a certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack and is conclusive evidence of ownership. Reinforces the imprescriptibility of actions to recover registered land.
• Rules of Court, Rule 45 — Governs appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, raising only questions of law.