GR 194336; (March, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 194336 ; March 11, 2013
PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. RAMON DUMADAG, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Pilar Development Corporation filed a complaint for accion publiciana against respondents, alleging they built shanties without consent on its 5,613-square-meter property in Las Piñas City, registered under its name. The property was designated as an open space for recreational facilities within Pilar Village Subdivision. Petitioner sought to recover possession.
Respondents denied the allegations. The trial court, after trial and ocular inspection, dismissed the complaint. It found the occupied land was within a three-meter strip along the Mahabang Ilog Creek, which was expressly reserved for public easement as annotated on the title. The court ruled this strip was public property under Article 502 of the Civil Code, not owned by petitioner, and only the local government could institute a recovery action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but clarified the proper party to seek recovery was the Republic, through the Solicitor General, not the city.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner, as the registered owner of the land containing a strip reserved for public easement, is the proper party to file an action to recover possession of that strip from the occupants.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the lower courts. The three-meter strip along the creek, reserved for public easement per the title annotation, is a legal easement for public use. While Article 630 of the Civil Code states the owner of the servient estate generally retains ownership of the portion burdened by an easement, Article 635 provides that easements for public or communal use are governed primarily by special laws.
Here, DENR Administrative Order No. 99-21, implementing provisions of the Water Code, governs. It classifies the three-meter zone along rivers and streams as part of the public domain, reserved for environmental protection and public use. Consequently, the disputed strip is public land. Ownership is vested in the State, and the annotation on petitioner’s title constituted a statutory limitation on its ownership, converting the strip into property of public dominion.
As the strip is public land, the proper party to recover its possession is the State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General under the Public Land Act. Petitioner, despite its title, cannot assert a right of possession over property classified as public domain. Its remedy is to seek the assistance of the State to clear the area of occupants. The action was correctly dismissed, as petitioner lacked the requisite personality to sue for recovery of possession over the public easement area.