Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 155051 May 29, 2007
RURAL BANK OF ANDA, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LINGAEN! DAGUPAN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
T"# Ca$#
his is a petition for revie!
"
of the Decision
#
dated "$ October #%%" and the Resolution dated #& 'u(ust #%%# of the Court of 'ppeals
in C')*.R. CV No. ++,-..
T"# Fa%&$
he lot in dispute, Cadastral /ot -&+ 0/ot -&+1, is located in the Poblacion of 2in3ale4, Pan(asinan. /ot -&+ has a total area of about
",&%% s5uare 3eters and is part of /ot &. Cadastral /ot -&- and /ot -&6 also for3 part of /ot &. Cadastral /ot -&- is 7no!n as I3elda8s
Par7, !hile on /ot -&6 is a !aitin( shed for co33uters. /ot & is bounded on the north b4 /ot " of Plan II)$#%")' and on the south b4
the national road. In front of /ot -&+ is the buildin( of Mar4 9elp of Christians Se3inar4 0se3inar41 !hich is on /ot ".
/ot " of Plan II)$#%")', !hich ad:oins /ot & on the north, is titled in the na3e of respondent Ro3an Catholic 'rchbishop of /in(a4en
0respondent1 under ransfer Certificate of itle No. +&-$ 0C +&-$1. 'n annotation on C +&-$ states that the o!nership of /ot & is
bein( clai3ed b4 both respondent and the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4.
In "6$., the Rector of the se3inar4 ordered the construction of the fence separatin( /ot -&+ fro3 the national road to prevent
the caretelas fro3 par7in( because the s3ell of horse 3anure !as alread4 botherin( the priests livin( in the se3inar4.
&
he concrete
fence enclosin( /ot -&+ has openin(s in the east, !est, and center and has no (ate. People can pass throu(h /ot -&+ at an4 ti3e of
the da4.
,
On ## Dece3ber "66-, the San((unian( 2a4an of 2in3ale4, Pan(asinan, passed and approved Resolution Nos. "%,
$
and
"%$.
+
Resolution No. "%, converted /ot -&+ fro3 an institutional lot to a co33ercial lot. Resolution No. "%$ authori;ed the 3unicipal
3a4or to enter into a contract of lease for #$ 4ears !ith the Rural 2an7 of 'nda over a portion of /ot -&+ !ith an area of #$# s5uare
3eters.
-
In Dece3ber "66-, <r. 'renos, the director of the se3inar4, discovered that a sa!ali fence !as bein( constructed enclosin( a portion
of /ot -&+. In =anuar4 "66., the Municipal Ma4or of 2in3ale4, Rolando Do3alanta 0Ma4or Do3alanta1, ca3e to the se3inar4 to
discuss the situation. Ma4or Do3alanta and <r. 'renos a(reed that the construction of the buildin( for the Rural 2an7 of 'nda should
be stopped.
On #, March "66., respondent re5uested Ma4or Do3alanta to re3ove the sa!ali fence and restore the concrete fence. On #% Ma4
"66., Ma4or Do3alanta infor3ed respondent that the construction of the buildin( of the Rural 2an7 of 'nda !ould resu3e but that he
!as !illin( to discuss !ith respondent to resolve the proble3 concernin( /ot -&+.
On " =une "66., respondent filed a co3plaint for 'bate3ent of Ille(al Constructions, In:unction and Da3a(es !ith >rit of Preli3inar4
In:unction in the Re(ional rial Court of /in(a4en, Pan(asinan. On #, 'u(ust "66., the trial court ordered the issuance of a !rit of
preli3inar4 in:unction.
On , =anuar4 #%%%, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of !hich reads?
>9ERE<ORE, in the li(ht of the fore(oin(, :ud(3ent is hereb4 rendered in favor of the plaintiff @Ro3an Catholic 'rchbishop of
/in(a4en)Da(upanA?
". Ma7in( the !rit of preli3inar4 in:unction per3anentB
#. Orderin( the defendants to cause to be restored the concrete !all !ith iron railin(s, to cause to be re3oved the sa!ali
fence, both at the eCpense of the defendants, :ointl4 and severall4, and
&. Conde3nin( the defendants to pa4 :ointl4 and severall4, to the plaintiff the a3ount of P#$,%%%.%% as liti(ation eCpenses,
attorne48s fees in the a3ount of P$%,%%%.%% and the costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED.
.
On appeal, the Court of 'ppeals affir3ed the decision !ith the 3odification that the a!ards of liti(ation eCpenses, attorne48s fees, and
costs should be deleted. he Court of 'ppeals subse5uentl4 denied the 3otion for reconsideration of the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 and
the Rural 2an7 of 'nda.
T"# R'()*+ o, &"# T-)a( Co'-&
he trial court found that /ot -&+ is not covered b4 an4 orrens title either in the na3e of respondent or in the na3e of the Municipalit4
of 2in3ale4. he trial court held that /ot -&+ is public in nature. Since /ot -&+ is propert4 of public do3inion, it is outside the co33erce
of 3an. hus, the San((unian( 2a4an of 2in3ale4, Pan(asinan eCceeded its authorit4 !hen it adopted Resolution Nos. "%, and "%$
convertin( /ot -&+ fro3 an institutional lot to a co33ercial lot and authori;in( the 3unicipal 3a4or to enter into a contract of lease for
#$ 4ears !ith the Rural 2an7 of 'nda over a #$# s5uare 3eter portion of /ot -&+ .
T"# R'()*+ o, &"# Co'-& o, A..#a($
he Court of 'ppeals a(reed !ith the trial court that /ot -&+ is propert4 of public do3inion and is used b4 the public as a path!a4.
Respondent and the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 are 3ere clai3ants !ith no sufficient evidence to prove their o!nership of /ot -&+. he
Court of 'ppeals held that propert4 of public do3inion is intended for the co33on !elfare and cannot be the ob:ect of appropriation
either b4 the state or b4 private persons. Since /ot -&+ is for public use, it is a propert4 of public do3inion and it is not susceptible of
private o!nership. hus, Resolution Nos. "%, and "%$ are void for bein( enacted be4ond the po!ers of the San((unian( 2a4an of
2in3ale4. he contract of lease bet!een the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 and the Rural 2an7 of 'nda is therefore void.
he Court of 'ppeals also ruled that since neither the respondent nor the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 o!ns /ot -&+, there is no basis for
the 3onetar4 a!ards (ranted b4 the trial court.
T"# I$$'#
he issue in this case is !hether Resolution Nos. "%, and "%$ of the San((unian( 2a4an of 2in3ale4 are valid.
T"# R'()*+ o, &"# Co'-&
he petition has no 3erit.
2oth respondent and the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 ad3it that the4 do not have title over /ot -&+. he 'ssistant Chief of the '((re(ate
Surve4 Section of the /and Mana(e3ent Services in Re(ion I testified that no docu3ent of o!nership for /ot -&+ !as ever presented
to their office.
6
Respondent clai3s /ot -&+ based on its alle(ed open, continuous, adverse, and uninterrupted possession of /ot -&+. 9o!ever, the
records reveal other!ise. Even the !itnesses for respondent testified that /ot -&+ !as used b4 the people as path!a4, par7in( space,
and pla4(round.
"%
On the other hand, the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 alle(ed that it is the sole clai3ant of /ot -&+ based on the Propert4 Identification Map,
aC Mappin( Control Roll of the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4, and the /ot Data Co3putation in the na3e of the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4.
9o!ever, these docu3ents 3erel4 sho! that the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 is a 3ere clai3ant of /ot -&+. In fact, the chief of Surve4
Division of the Depart3ent of Environ3ent and Natural Resources, San <ernando Cit4, /a Dnion testified that the cadastral surve4
""
of
/ot -&+, !hich !as surve4ed for the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 in "6.6, had not been approved.
"#
he cadastral surve4 !as based on the
/ot Data Co3putation
"&
of /ot -&+ !hich !as li7e!ise contracted b4 the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 in "6.6.
he records sho! that /ot -&+ is used as a path!a4 (oin( to the school, the se3inar4, or the church, !hich are all located on lots
ad:oined to /ot -&+.
",
/ot -&+ !as also used for par7in( and pla4(round.
"$
In other !ords, /ot -&+ !as used b4 the public in (eneral.
2oth respondent and the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 failed to prove their ri(ht over /ot -&+. Since /ot -&+ has never been ac5uired b4
an4one throu(h purchase or (rant or an4 other 3ode of ac5uisition, /ot -&+ re3ains part of the public do3ain and is o!ned b4 the
state. 's held in Hong Hok v. David?
"+
here bein( no evidence !hatever that the propert4 in 5uestion !as ever ac5uired b4 the applicants or their ancestors either b4
co3position title fro3 the Spanish *overn3ent or b4 possessor4 infor3ation title or b4 an4 other 3eans for the ac5uisition of public
lands, the propert4 3ust be held to be public do3ain. <or it is !ell settled Ethat no public land can be ac5uired b4 private persons
!ithout an4 (rant, eCpress or i3plied, fro3 the (overn3ent.E It is indispensable then that there be a sho!in( of a title fro3 the state or
an4 other 3ode of ac5uisition reco(ni;ed b4 la!. he 3ost recent restate3ent of the doctrine, found in an opinion of =ustice =.2./.
Re4es follo!s? Ehe applicant, havin( failed to establish his ri(ht or title over the northern portion of /ot No. ,+& involved in the present
controvers4, and there bein( no sho!in( that the sa3e has been ac5uired b4 an4 private person fro3 the *overn3ent, either b4
purchase or b4 (rant, the propert4 is and re3ains part of the public do3ain.E
his is in accordance !ith the Re(alian doctrine !hich holds that the state o!ns all lands and !aters of the public do3ain.
"-
hus,
under 'rticle FII, Section # of the Constitution? E'll lands of the public do3ain, !aters, 3inerals, coal, petroleu3, and other 3ineral oils,
all forces of potential ener(4, fisheries, forests or ti3ber, !ildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are o!ned b4 the state.E
Municipal corporations cannot appropriate to the3selves public or (overn3ent lands !ithout prior (rant fro3 the (overn3ent.
".
Since
/ot -&+ is o!ned b4 the state, the San((unian( 2a4an of 2in3ale4 eCceeded its authorit4 in passin( Resolution Nos. "%, and "%$.
hus, Resolution Nos. "%, and "%$ are void and conse5uentl4, the contract of lease bet!een the Municipalit4 of 2in3ale4 and the
Rural 2an7 of 'nda over a portion of /ot -&+ is also void.
/HEREFORE, !e DEN the petition. >e AFFIRM the Decision dated "$ October #%%" and the Resolution dated #& 'u(ust #%%# of
the Court of 'ppeals.
SO ORDERED.