Department of Education vs. Caleda

A government agency occupying private registered land without title or a valid expropriation proceeding may be ordered to vacate if the landowner did not expressly or impliedly consent to the occupation and promptly asserted their rights. The agency's claim that the property is devoted to public use does not automatically bar an ejectment order in such circumstances.

The Department of Education (DepEd), through the Solana Fresh Water Fishery School (SFWFS), occupied a parcel of registered rice land (Lot 7421) in Solana, Cagayan. Princess Joama Marcosa A. Caleda purchased this lot from the heirs of the registered owner, Bueno Gallebo, in 2014. Upon discovering the school's occupation, Caleda demanded that DepEd vacate. When DepEd refused, citing a 1965 Deed of Sale it claimed covered the lot and its long possession, Caleda filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession.

• Filed in Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Solana, Cagayan (Civil Case No. 1007).
• MCTC ruled in favor of Caleda, ordering DepEd to vacate (January 10, 2020).
• Appealed to Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Tuguegarao City (Civil Case No. 9035). RTC affirmed MCTC (November 5, 2021).
• Elevated to Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 172008). CA affirmed lower courts (September 27, 2023; Resolution denying reconsideration on March 6, 2024).
• DepEd filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) with the Supreme Court.

• Caleda is the absolute owner of Lot 7421 (10,637 sqm) via an Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale from the heirs of Bueno Gallebo, the registered owner under OCT No. 4975.
• The same OCT covered an adjacent lot, Lot 7420 (14,966 sqm).
• SFWFS, under DepEd, occupied Lot 7421 and built structures (a perimeter fence, converted it into agricultural/fishery laboratories).
• DepEd claimed ownership based on a July 7, 1965 Deed of Sale from Bueno Gallebo.
• Caleda sent demand letters to vacate starting in 2015 and filed the complaint in 2016.
• DepEd's own witness (SFWFS Principal) admitted the 1965 Deed of Sale only covered Lot 7420, not Lot 7421, and that there were no permanent structures on Lot 7421.

• Public policy prohibits ejecting the government from property already devoted to public use (a school).
• Its remedy is to exercise eminent domain; Caleda's only recourse is to seek just compensation.
• Caleda and her predecessors are guilty of laches for not asserting rights for decades while SFWFS occupied and developed the land.

• She is the registered owner with a better right of possession.
• DepEd occupied the land without her or her predecessors' consent and without expropriation, violating her due process rights.
• She is not guilty of laches as she acted promptly upon discovering the occupation in 2014-2016.
• The cited jurisprudence on non-ejection for public use is inapplicable because it requires implied acquiescence, which is absent here.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the CA erred in affirming that Caleda has a better right to possess Lot 7421.
  2. Whether DepEd can be ejected from property devoted to public use.
  3. Whether Caleda's claim is barred by laches.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  1. No error. Caleda proved ownership through a valid sale from the registered owners. The 1965 Deed of Sale only covered Lot 7420. Ownership includes the right to possess.
  2. Yes, DepEd can be ejected in this case. The doctrine that the government cannot be ejected from property devoted to public use applies only when there is express or implied acquiescence (e.g., the owner stands by without protest while the government invests heavily). Here, Caleda and her predecessors did not consent; DepEd occupied the wrong lot. DepEd also failed to initiate expropriation.
  3. No laches. Caleda acted within two years of purchase to assert her rights (demand letters, dialogues, adverse claim, complaint). Furthermore, laches does not apply to registered land under the Torrens System.

• Doctrine on Non-Ejection for Public Use (with Acquiescence): A public institution with eminent domain power may not be ejected from property devoted to public use if the owner expressly or impliedly acquiesced (e.g., through unreasonable delay). Applied here to distinguish the case: no acquiescence was found.
• Accion Publiciana: A plenary action to recover the better right of possession, independent of title, filed in the RTC when dispossession has lasted over one year. Ownership may be provisionally determined to resolve possession.
• Laches and Registered Land: Laches is the unreasonable delay in asserting a right. Laches cannot be invoked against a registered owner of land under the Torrens System, as no title can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession against such owner.

• "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 doctrine that laches is not applicable to registered land covered by the Torrens System is well-settled."
• "Petitioner cannot transform its appeal into an expropriation proceeding."

• National Transmission Corporation v. Bermuda Development Corporation — Cited by DepEd; SC distinguished it, noting it applies to public utility corporations and requires owner acquiescence, which was absent here.
• Republic v. Mendoza — Cited by DepEd; SC distinguished it, noting the owners there had effectively ceded the property to the government.
• Manila Railroad Company v. Paredes — Cited to establish the two conditions for non-ejection: (1) power of eminent domain, and (2) express/implied consent/acquiescence of the owner.
• Heirs of Mariano v. City of Naga — Cited to hold that an aggrieved party cannot simply demand just compensation in lieu of possession absent a valid expropriation proceeding.
• Department of Education v. Heirs of Banguilan — Cited to reinforce that laches does not apply to registered land and that DepEd's possession by mere tolerance cannot defeat the owner's title.

• Civil Code, Art. 428 — The right to possess is an attribute of ownership.
• Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529), Sec. 47 — The decree of registration becomes incontrovertible one year after entry; supports the indefeasibility of Caleda's title.
• Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 1 — Governs petitions for review on certiorari, limited to questions of law.