Primary Holding

Pilar Development Corporation cannot recover possession of the 3-meter strip of land designated for public easement because it is considered part of the public dominion. The proper party to institute an action concerning this public easement is the Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General or the local government of Las Piñas City.

Background

Pilar Development Corporation claimed ownership of a property within Pilar Village Subdivision, a portion of which was occupied by respondents who built shanties. PDC filed an accion publiciana to evict the respondents, arguing they built without consent on land designated for village recreational facilities. The respondents countered that the local government, not PDC, had jurisdiction over the area. The trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed PDC's complaint, finding the occupied area was a public easement.

Facts

• 1. Pilar Development Corporation (PDC) owns a 5,613-square-meter property in Pilar Village Subdivision, Las Piñas City, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 481436.
• 2. The title indicates that a 3-meter strip along Mahabang Ilog Creek is reserved for public easement purposes.
• 3. Respondents built shanties on a portion of this 3-meter strip without PDC's knowledge or consent.
• 4. PDC filed an accion publiciana claiming the land was intended for village recreational facilities.
• 5. The trial court conducted an ocular inspection and found the respondents occupied the 3-meter easement zone along Mahabang Ilog Creek.
• 6. The area is considered public property and part of the public dominion according to Article 502 of the New Civil Code and DENR Administrative Order No. 99-21.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Pilar Development Corporation, as the registered owner, argued it retains ownership of the 3-meter strip despite the public easement.
• 2. Citing Article 630 of the Civil Code, PDC claimed that the easement does not divest them of ownership and they are entitled to possession.
• 3. PDC asserted its right to file an action for recovery of possession as the owner of the land, in accordance with Articles 428 and 539 of the Civil Code.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Respondents denied the material allegations and asserted that the local government, not PDC, had jurisdiction over the area.
• 2. Impliedly, they argued they were occupying a public easement zone and that PDC's claim was invalid in this context.

Issues

• 1. Whether Pilar Development Corporation, as the titled owner, can recover possession of the 3-meter strip designated as a public easement.
• 2. Whether the 3-meter strip reserved for public easement is part of the public dominion and beyond private ownership.
• 3. Who is the proper party to institute an action regarding the 3-meter strip public easement zone.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled against Pilar Development Corporation.
• 2. The Court held that the 3-meter strip along Mahabang Ilog Creek is a legal easement for public use, specifically for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing, and salvage, as mandated by P.D. 1216 and P.D. 1067 (Water Code).
• 3. This easement is part of the open space requirement for residential subdivisions and is considered public land beyond the commerce of men.
• 4. The Court emphasized that while Article 630 generally states the servient estate owner retains ownership, Article 635 dictates that easements for public or communal use are governed by special laws and regulations.
• 5. DENR A.O. No. 99-21, P.D. 1216, and P.D. 1067 establish the public nature of the 3-meter easement, limiting PDC's ownership rights within that zone.
• 6. The Court clarified that while respondents also have no right to possess public land, PDC, as a private entity, is not the proper party to evict them from a public easement zone.
• 7. The proper parties to file an action concerning the public easement are the Republic of the Philippines through the OSG (for reversion under C.A. 141) and the local government of Las Piñas City (to enforce R.A. 7279 regarding urban development and housing and eviction from danger areas).
• 8. The Court suggested PDC could file mandamus to compel the local government to act on eviction and relocation.

Doctrines

• 1. Public Dominion: Property belonging to the state, such as rivers and their banks, intended for public use and not subject to private appropriation.
• 2. Legal Easement (Easement by Law/Compulsory Easement): An easement constituted by law for public use or in the interest of private persons. In this case, the 3-meter strip along riverbanks is a legal easement for public use.
• 3. Accion Publiciana: An action to recover the better right of possession, a plenary action intended to determine who has the superior right of possession de jure.
• 4. Open Space Requirement: Laws and regulations requiring residential subdivisions to allocate areas for public use, such as parks and easements.
• 5. Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (R.A. 7279): Legislation aimed at uplifting living conditions in urban poor areas, including the mandate for LGUs to evict and demolish structures in danger areas and public places.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "open spaces are 'for public use and are, therefore, beyond the commerce of men’ and that ‘[the] areas reserved for parks, playgrounds and recreational use shall be non-alienable public lands, and non-buildable.'"
• 2. "squatters have no possessory rights over the land intruded upon. The length of time that they may have physically occupied the land is immaterial; they are deemed to have entered the same in bad faith, such that the nature of their possession is presumed to have retained the same character throughout their occupancy."
• 3. "An easement or servitude is a real right on another's property, corporeal and immovable, whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or allowing somebody else to do or something to be done on his or her property, for the benefit of another person or tenement; it is jus in re aliena, inseparable from the estate to which it actively or passively belongs, indivisible, perpetual, and a continuing property right, unless extinguished by causes provided by law."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Villanueva v. Velasco and Quimen v. Court of Appeals: Cited to define easement and its characteristics as a real right.
• 2. Castro v. Monsod: Cited as additional jurisprudence for defining legal easement.
• 3. Woodridge School, Inc. v. ARB Construction Co., Inc., La Vista Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Quimen v. Court of Appeals: Cited as further examples of cases related to legal easements.
• 4. D'Oro Land Realty and Development Corporation v. Claunan: Cited to support the principle that squatters have no possessory rights over public land.
• 5. De Vera-Cruz v. Miguel, Pendot v. Court of Appeals: Further support for the doctrine on squatters' lack of rights.
• 6. Macasiano v. National Housing Authority: Cited in relation to R.A. 7279 and the mandate of LGUs regarding urban poor and squatting.
• 7. Galay v. Court of Appeals: Also cited in connection with R.A. 7279.
• 8. Sumulong v. Guerrero: Cited to emphasize housing as a matter of state concern.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 502, New Civil Code: Defines public dominion, including rivers and their natural beds.
• 2. Article 630, New Civil Code: States that the owner of the servient estate retains ownership of the portion with easement, but must not impair the easement's use.
• 3. Article 635, New Civil Code: Specifies that easements for public or communal use are governed by special laws and regulations.
• 4. Article 428, New Civil Code: Defines ownership and the right of action to recover property.
• 5. Article 539, New Civil Code: Protects possessors and their right to be respected in possession.
• 6. Section 101, Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act): Specifies that actions for reversion of public domain lands are instituted by the Solicitor General.
• 7. Section 2, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 99-21: Details regulations on easements along riverbanks, including the 3-meter easement in urban areas.
• 8. Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1216: Defines "Open Space" in residential subdivisions.
• 9. Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1067 (Water Code of the Philippines): Article 51 outlines easement of public use along banks of rivers and streams.
• 10. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992): Sections 28, 29, 30, and 45, which address the mandate of LGUs concerning eviction, relocation, prohibition of new illegal structures, and penalties for violations in urban development and housing, particularly in relation to public safety and welfare.