Padayao vs. Villafuerte, Jr.

In an accion publiciana, a claimant's prior, uncontested physical possession of alienable and disposable public land, coupled with a pending application for a free patent, establishes a better right of possession against a party who dispossessed them without legal authority, even if a certificate of title has not yet been issued for a portion of the land.

Petitioner Dante Padayao, representing the Heirs of Mario Padayao, claimed continuous, open, and adverse possession of Pitogo Island (covering Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973) in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, since the 1920s. His predecessor obtained a survey plan in 1934, and real property taxes were paid from 1945 to 2009. In 2009, the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur, through its officials (respondents), ordered the residents to vacate, claiming the island was a protected area and danger zone. Upon the residents' refusal, armed men demolished structures on the island on February 4, 2009. Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages.

• Nature of the Action: Petitioner Dante Padayao filed an accion publiciana to recover the better right of possession (possession de jure) over Pitogo Island, consisting of Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973.
• Petitioner's Possession and Title Claim: Petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest occupied Pitogo Island since the 1920s. A survey plan for the lots was issued in 1934. Real property taxes were paid from 1945 to 2009. Lot No. 6973 was later covered by Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. 35669 (KOT Blg. 35669), issued in the name of the Heirs of Mario Padayao.
• Respondents' Dispossession: In January 2009, the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur, through its officials (respondents), ordered residents to vacate Pitogo Island, claiming it was a protected area and danger zone. On February 4, 2009, armed men demolished structures on the island, forcibly evicting petitioner and other residents.
• Respondents' Justification: Respondents claimed the relocation was for environmental protection, citing reports that the island was ecologically threatened and a danger zone. They offered financial assistance to residents.
• Evidence on Land Classification: DENR official Manuel Tengco, Jr. testified that Pitogo Island is alienable and disposable based on Land Classification Map 882 (approved in 1931). The Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) confirmed the island was not a DENR protected area.
• RTC Findings: The RTC conducted an ocular inspection and found petitioner's house was 60 meters from the shoreline, not on the shoreline itself. It ruled in favor of petitioner, giving weight to the Survey Plan, KOT Blg. 35669, and tax payments.
• CA Modification: The CA affirmed petitioner's better right of possession only over titled Lot No. 6973, ruling he failed to prove ownership of Lot No. 6972 and that it was alienable land.

• Proof of Alienable and Disposable Land: Petitioner argued that the testimony of DENR official Tengco, the Land Classification Map 882, and certifications from the DENR and Bureau of Forestry sufficiently proved Pitogo Island is alienable and disposable.
• Possession of Both Lots: Petitioner contended that the 1934 Survey Plan covered both Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973, and his continuous possession was only interrupted by the 2009 demolition.
• Nature of the Action: Petitioner maintained that the case is an accion publiciana, where the only issue is possession, not ownership.

• Failure to Prove Land Classification: Respondents countered that petitioner did not present a positive government act declaring the island alienable and disposable, and that the certifications presented were insufficient. They argued Tengco was not authorized to classify lands.
• Presumption of Inalienability: Respondents argued that absent proof of alienable status, petitioner's possession, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership.
• Police Power Exercise: Respondents claimed the demolition was a valid exercise of police power to relocate occupants from a protected area and shoreline danger zone.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the case despite the complaint's failure to allege the assessed value of the property.
• Possession of Lot No. 6973: Whether petitioner has a better right of possession over Lot No. 6973.
• Possession of Lot No. 6972: Whether petitioner has a better right of possession over Lot No. 6972, which was not covered by a certificate of title.

• Jurisdiction: The RTC should have dismissed the complaint for failure to allege the assessed value, a jurisdictional requirement. However, respondents are estopped from raising this issue for the first time on appeal, having actively participated in the proceedings without objection.
• Possession of Lot No. 6973: Petitioner has a better right of possession. The issuance of KOT Blg. 35669 presupposes compliance with the requirement for prior occupation and cultivation under Commonwealth Act No. 141. The patent title stands uncontroverted.
• Possession of Lot No. 6972: Petitioner has a better right of possession. In an accion publiciana, ownership is only provisionally resolved. The entire Pitogo Island is alienable and disposable based on Land Map 882. Petitioner's prior, uncontested physical possession is established by evidence, including respondents' own admission that he was an "occupant" and "inhabitant" whose structures were demolished. Respondents failed to prove the island was a validly declared protected area.

• Accion Publiciana — A plenary action to recover the better right of possession (possession de jure), distinct from an action for recovery of ownership. In such an action, the question of ownership may be provisionally resolved solely to determine the rightful possessor.
• Proof of Alienable and Disposable Land — A land classification map (like Land Map 882), certified by the DENR as existing in its records, is reliable proof that a parcel of land has been classified as alienable and disposable public land.
• Estoppel by Laches in Jurisdictional Matters — A party who actively participates in all stages of a case before the trial court and voluntarily seeks affirmative relief is estopped from challenging the court's jurisdiction on appeal.

• "In an accion publiciana, ownership and the validity of a certificate of title may be provisionally resolved only insofar as to determine who is the rightful possessor of the property, and any ruling thereon shall not be conclusive on the matter." — Defines the limited scope of ownership inquiry in a possessory action.
• "The operative act which converts property of public dominion to patrimonial property is its classification as alienable and disposable land of the public domain, as this classification precisely serves as the manifestation of the State's lack of intent to retain the same for some public use or purpose." — Cited from Republic v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., explaining the significance of land classification.

• Republic v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., 919 Phil. 622 (2022) — Cited for the principle that classification as alienable and disposable land is the operative act converting public dominion property to patrimonial property.
• The Heirs of Alfredo Cullado v. Gutierrez, 858 Phil. 580 (2019) — Cited for the definition of accion publiciana and the principle that in such actions, ownership is only provisionally determined.
• Magsi v. Heirs of Lopez, Jr., G.R. No. 262034, May 22, 2024 — Cited for the rule that a patent title holder is entitled to possession.

• Commonwealth Act No. 141 (The Public Land Act), Section 101 — Provides that actions for reversion of public lands must be instituted by the Solicitor General. The Court noted this is the proper remedy to assail a free patent, not a collateral attack in an accion publiciana.
• Republic Act No. 7586 (National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992) — Cited to show that Pitogo Island was not included in the proclaimed Caramoan National Park, undermining respondents' claim that it was a protected area.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 (Judiciary Reorganization Act) — Provides the jurisdictional thresholds for RTCs in civil actions involving real property. The Court noted the complaint's deficiency in alleging assessed value.

• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (on official business)
• Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh (on leave)
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (Ponente)
• Justice Rodil V. Zalameda
• Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan
• Justice Japar B. Dimaampao