G.R. No. 217703 , October 09, 2019
Republic of the Philippines, as represented by the Regional Director Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS)-Region II, Petitioner, v. Severo Abarca, Nilo Abarca, Perseus Abarca, Juvy Abarca Malana and Agnes Abarca Balmaceda, Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, claimed ownership of a parcel of land (Lot 1, TS 1028) in Alibagu, Ilagan, Isabela, used as the Alibagu Elementary School (AES) site since the 1960s. In January 1983, respondent Severo Abarca was allowed by school officials to lease a one-hectare portion for 10 years, paying an annual rent of P200. After the lease expired in 1993, Severo and his children (the other respondents) refused to vacate, having built houses on the property. The petitioner filed a case for recovery of possession. The respondents denied the petitioner’s ownership, claimed they returned the leased portion in 1993, and asserted their possession since 1970 over a different area outside the school site. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the lot to be public land owned by the State under the Regalian doctrine and that the respondents’ occupation was within the school site based on commissioners’ survey reports. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that the petitioner failed to prove ownership, notably by not presenting a Presidential Proclamation reserving the land for school use, and failed to sufficiently identify the leased portion.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner has a better right of possession over the subject property.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner has a better right of possession. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA decision and reinstating the RTC ruling. The Court held that under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and lands not clearly under private ownership are presumed to be State property. The burden of proof to overcome this presumption lies with the party claiming ownership (the respondents), who must show the land is alienable and disposable. The respondents failed to present incontrovertible evidence, such as a positive government act reclassifying the land. Their tax declarations and sales patent application were insufficient to prove ownership and, in fact, their application acknowledged government ownership. The Court clarified that a Presidential Proclamation is not required to prove the State’s ownership of public land; it is required only to reclassify or alienate such land. The commissioners’ surveys established that the respondents’ occupation was within the school site (Lot 1, TS 1028). Therefore, the property, being part of the inalienable public domain reserved for public education, is beyond private appropriation, and the petitioner has a superior right of possession.