G.R. No. 205664, June 9, 2014
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, represented by its REGIONAL DIRECTOR TERESITA DOMALANTA, Petitioner, vs. MARIANO TULIAO, Respondent.

FACTS

On October 8, 2002, respondent Mariano Tuliao filed an action for recovery of possession and removal of structure with damages against petitioner Department of Education (DepEd) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Tuguegarao City (MTCC). Tuliao alleged he was the registered owner of a parcel of land, a portion of which his predecessors-in-interest allowed the Atulayan Elementary School (AES) to use as an access road. In March 2000, upon discovering a structure being built on the land, he demanded DepEd to cease, desist, and vacate, and to pay reasonable rent, but DepEd refused. DepEd defended that its occupation was adverse, peaceful, continuous, and in the concept of an owner for over fifty years, and that the complaint stated no cause of action or was barred by prescription/laches. The MTCC ruled in favor of Tuliao, declaring him the lawful possessor and directing him to exercise his options under Article 448 of the Civil Code regarding the structures, ordering DepEd to pay reasonable compensation and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision on appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently affirmed the RTC decision, dismissing DepEd’s petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC and holding that there was a sufficient description of the land in dispute.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC and holding that petitioner’s possession was only due to the acquiescence or tolerance of the respondent.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider that respondent’s claim is barred by laches due to the uninterrupted possession of Atulayan Elementary School for at least thirty-two (32) years.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and affirmed the assailed CA decision.
1. On the sufficiency of the land description, the Court held that Tuliao discharged his burden of proof by presenting his certificate of title, tax declarations, and tax receipts, which were sufficient to establish his ownership and better right of possession. The burden then shifted to DepEd to refute this claim, which it failed to do, offering only the testimonial evidence of a retired teacher. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts, which are generally binding.
2. On the nature of possession, the Court upheld the finding that DepEd’s possession was merely tolerated by Tuliao and his predecessors-in-interest. Tuliao’s claim of tolerance was not refuted by DepEd.
3. On the defense of laches, the Court ruled it had no merit. Since DepEd’s possession was by mere tolerance, Tuliao’s right to recover possession was imprescriptible, and laches did not apply. The Court noted the MTCC was fair in applying Article 448 of the Civil Code, directing Tuliao to exercise his options (to appropriate the structures or oblige DepEd to buy the land), rather than ordering immediate removal. The Court suggested that if the option was not feasible, DepEd’s remedy was to file an action for expropriation.