GR 225176; (January, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 225176. January 19, 2018. ESMERALDO GATCHALIAN, represented by SAMUEL GATCHALIAN, Petitioner, vs. CESAR FLORES, JOSE LUIS ARANETA, CORAZON QUING, and CYNTHIA FLORES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Esmeraldo Gatchalian, a co-owner of Road Lot 23 covered by TCT No. 79180 under his parents’ names, filed an ejectment complaint against respondents before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Petitioner alleged that respondents’ properties, acquired from a prior owner, encroached on a portion of Road Lot 23. After respondents demonstrated “gross ingratitude,” petitioner withdrew his tolerated possession and demanded they vacate. The MeTC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondents to vacate and pay rentals.
Respondents appealed, arguing that Road Lot 23 is a public road designated as “Don Juan Street” under Municipal Ordinance No. 88-04, constituting it as a public right-of-way. They asserted that petitioner had no cause of action, as only the city government could file such a case. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals initially reinstated the MeTC decision but, upon reconsideration, affirmed the RTC, holding that the ordinance converted the lot to public property and that laches had set in against the petitioner.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the ejectment complaint by ruling that Road Lot 23 had been converted into public property by ordinance and through laches.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the MeTC decision. In an ejectment case, the sole issue is physical possession; ownership is relevant only to resolve possession. Here, it was undisputed that Road Lot 23 remained registered under petitioner’s parents’ names. The Court held that a municipal ordinance alone cannot convert private property into public property without expropriation proceedings or a voluntary donation/sale by the owner to the government. Citing Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Santiago, the Court emphasized that the local government’s failure to undertake expropriation or secure a donation meant the lot retained its private character.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the application of laches. A Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible. Laches does not apply where the possession by others was merely tolerated by the registered owner. Petitioner, as a co-owner, retained the right to possess the property and was entitled to file an ejectment action against encroachers. Therefore, petitioner validly sought to recover possession, and the ordinance did not divest him of that right.