G.R. No. 136438 November 11, 2004
Teofilo C. Villarico, petitioner, vs. Vivencio Sarmiento, Spouses Bessie Sarmiento-Del Mundo & Beth Del Mundo, Andok’s Litson Corporation and Marites’ Carinderia, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Teofilo Villarico owned a lot separated from Ninoy Aquino Avenue by a strip of government land. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) constructed stairways on this public land for public access to the elevated highway. In 1991, respondents constructed buildings on a portion of this government land. In 1993, petitioner acquired a 74.30-square-meter portion of the same government area through a Deed of Exchange, registered as TCT No. 74430 in his name. In 1995, petitioner filed an accion publiciana complaint, alleging respondents’ structures closed his right of way to the highway and encroached on his titled portion.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that respondents had a better right of possession over the subject land except the portion covered by petitioner’s TCT No. 74430, which they were ordered to vacate. The RTC found petitioner was never in possession of the public land and was not deprived of access, as he could use Kapitan Tinoy Street. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC decision, particularly regarding the right of possession over the government strip of land and the propriety of accion publiciana.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the appellate decision. The core legal principle is that property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man. The strip of land where the DPWH built stairways is intended for public use as a passageway, making it property of public dominion under Article 420 of the Civil Code. Such property cannot be alienated, acquired by prescription, or burdened by any voluntary easement, such as a private right of way.
Consequently, petitioner cannot claim a possessory right over this public land. His use, like that of the general public, is merely by government tolerance. Accion publiciana, an action to recover the better right of possession, is unavailing against property that cannot be legally possessed by any private individual. Therefore, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that respondents had a better right of possession over the government lot; neither party can possess it.
However, the Court upheld the lower courts’ factual finding that respondents’ structures encroached on the portion now covered by petitioner’s TCT No. 74430, acquired via a valid Deed of Exchange. As the registered owner of that specific portion, petitioner is entitled to its possession. The modification clarifies that while petitioner has no possessory right over the public dominion area, his ownership and right to possess the titled portion are upheld.