Pilar Development Corporation vs. Dumadag

A 3-meter strip along riverbanks reserved for public easement under PD 1067 (Water Code) and DENR AO 99-21 forms part of public dominion and open space, not subject to private ownership or accion publiciana; the registered owner’s remedy is mandamus to compel the LGU to enforce eviction and demolition under RA 7279.

Petitioner owns a 5,613-square-meter parcel in Pilar Village Subdivision, Las Piñas City, designated as open space for recreational facilities. Respondents constructed shanties on a portion of this land without petitioner’s consent.

• Filed in RTC Las Piñas, Branch 197 on July 1, 2002: Complaint for accion publiciana with damages.
• RTC Decision (May 30, 2007): Dismissed the complaint; held the occupied area was within the 3-meter legal easement along Mahabang Ilog Creek and thus public property.
• RTC Order (August 21, 2007): Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
• CA Decision (March 5, 2010): Affirmed the RTC; ruled the strip was public dominion under DENR AO 99-21 and PD 1067; proper party to sue is the Republic through the OSG under CA 141, Section 101, or the LGU.
• CA Resolution (October 29, 2010): Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
• Elevated to SC via Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.

• Petitioner is the registered owner of the subject property under TCT No. 481436 issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal.
• The property is located at Daisy Road, Phase V, Pilar Village Subdivision, Almanza, Las Piñas City.
• The TCT contains an annotation reserving a 3-meter strip along Mahabang Ilog Creek for public easement purposes.
• Respondents are informal settlers who built shanties on the sloping area within this 3-meter strip.
• The trial court conducted an ocular inspection confirming the location of the structures within the easement zone.

• Relied on Article 630 of the New Civil Code: The owner of the servient estate retains ownership of the portion where the easement is established.
• Contended that despite the reservation for public easement, ownership remains with the corporation.
• Asserted entitlement to lawful possession under Articles 428 and 539 of the New Civil Code as the registered owner.
• Argued it is the proper party to file an action for recovery of possession against respondents.

• Denied the material allegations in the complaint.
• Briefly asserted that the local government, not the private owner, has jurisdiction and authority over them.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the 3-meter strip along Mahabang Ilog Creek forms part of public dominion or remains private property merely subject to easement.
  • Whether petitioner, as the registered owner, may maintain an accion publiciana to recover possession of the disputed strip.
  • Whether respondents possess any rights over the occupied land.
  • Who is the proper party to institute an action for recovery of possession of the 3-meter strip.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The 3-meter strip forms part of public dominion, not merely a private servitude. While Article 630 NCC provides that owners retain ownership of the servient estate, Article 635 NCC mandates that easements established for public or communal use are governed by special laws, not the general provisions on easements.
  • PD 1067 (Water Code), Article 51 establishes a 3-meter easement along banks in urban areas for public use (recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing, salvage) and prohibits building structures within this zone.
  • PD 1216 requires the 3-meter strip in subdivisions to be allocated as part of open space, which is "for public use and therefore beyond the commerce of men," non-alienable, and non-buildable.
  • DENR AO 99-21 implements these provisions, requiring the 3-meter strip to be demarcated, preserved, and made part of open space requirements.
  • Petitioner cannot recover possession via accion publiciana because the strip is public land; its ownership rights have been limited by law.
  • Respondents, as squatters, possess no rights over the land; they are deemed to have entered in bad faith, and the length of their occupation is immaterial.
  • The proper parties to file an action are: (1) the Republic of the Philippines through the OSG for actions for reversion under CA 141, Section 101; or (2) the LGU (Las Piñas City) for eviction and demolition under RA 7279 (UDHA).
  • Petitioner’s proper remedy is an action for mandamus to compel the LGU to enforce with reasonable dispatch the eviction, demolition, and relocation of respondents under RA 7279.

• Easement or Servitude — A real right on another’s property (jus in re aliena) whereby the owner must refrain from doing or allow something to be done for the benefit of another; characterized as inseparable, indivisible, perpetual, and continuing unless extinguished by law.
• Legal Easement — Constituted by law for public use or private interest; distinguished from voluntary easement created by will of owners.
• Article 630 vs. Article 635 NCC — The general rule that owners retain ownership of the servient portion (Art. 630) yields to the specific rule that public easements are governed by special laws (Art. 635).
• Public Dominion — Waters, banks, and strips reserved under the Water Code and environmental regulations are of public dominion, not subject to private appropriation or commerce.
• Squatters' Rights — Squatters possess no rights over land intruded upon; entry is presumed in bad faith regardless of duration; physical occupation does not ripen into ownership or possessory rights.
• Proper Party Rule in Public Land Recovery — Actions for reversion of public lands must be instituted by the Solicitor General; actions for eviction of squatters in danger areas (esteros, riverbanks) are mandated to LGUs under RA 7279.

• "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."
• "While Article 630 of the Code provides for the general rule that '[t]he owner of the servient estate retains the ownership of the portion on which the easement is established...' Article 635 thereof is specific in saying that '[a]ll matters concerning easements established for public or communal use shall be governed by the special laws and regulations relating thereto...'"
• "Said law is explicit: 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.'"
• "The banks of rivers and streams... throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas... are subject to the easement of public use... No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary... or to build structures of any kind." (citing PD 1067, Art. 51)
• "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..."
• "Yet all is not lost for petitioner. It may properly file an action for mandamus to compel the local government of Las Piñas City to enforce with reasonable dispatch the eviction, demolition, and relocation of respondents..."

• Villanueva v. Velasco — Cited for the definition and characteristics of easement (jus in re aliena, inseparable, indivisible, perpetual).
• Quimen v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the definition of easement.
• D'Oro Land Realty and Development Corporation v. Claunan — Controlling precedent that squatters have no possessory rights and are deemed to have entered in bad faith.
• Macasiano v. National Housing Authority — Cited regarding the enactment and effectivity of RA 7279.
• Galay v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the legislative intent of RA 7279 as an antidote to squatting.

• Article 502 of the New Civil Code — Defines things of public dominion (rivers, beds, waters).
• Article 630 of the New Civil Code — General rule on retention of ownership by servient estate owner.
• Article 635 of the New Civil Code — Special rule governing public easements via special laws.
• Article 428 of the New Civil Code — Rights of an owner to enjoy, dispose, and recover property.
• Article 539 of the New Civil Code — Protection of possession.
• Presidential Decree No. 1067 (Water Code), Article 51 — Establishes 3-meter public easement along banks in urban areas; prohibits structures.
• Presidential Decree No. 1216 — Defines open space in subdivisions as public use, non-alienable, non-buildable.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 99-21 — Implements 3-meter strip reservation for environmental protection; requires annotation in titles.
• Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), Section 101 — Designates the Solicitor General as the party to institute actions for reversion of public lands.
• Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act), Sections 28, 29, 30 — Mandates LGUs to evict and demolish structures in danger areas (riverbanks, esteros) and prohibits new illegal structures; provides for resettlement.

• N/A (Velasco, Jr., Abad, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concurred without separate opinions).