G.R. No. 241507, December 07, 2022
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Regional Director of the Department of Education [DepEd]-Region II, Petitioner, vs. Heirs of Eriberto Ontiveros and Spouses Gerardo and Daisy Ontiveros, Respondents.

FACTS

Sometime in the 1970s, the Department of Education (DepEd) built classrooms on a 1,811-square meter parcel of land in Gaddang, Aparri, Cagayan, which formed the Gaddang Elementary School. On June 19, 2008, the heirs of Eriberto Ontiveros and Spouses Gerardo and Daisy Ontiveros filed a Complaint for recovery of possession against DepEd, alleging the land was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-56977 under the names of Eriberto and Gerardo Ontiveros. They claimed Eriberto had only allowed DepEd to build temporary structures, but upon discovering these had become concrete buildings, they demanded rent or an option to purchase. Despite demands, they received no compensation. DepEd, in its Answer, claimed the Complaint lacked cause of action due to prescription and estoppel by laches, asserted it had a deed of sale, and invoked immunity from suit. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court ruled in favor of DepEd, finding it the rightful possessor as the Ontiveroses failed to prove a better right by not presenting the original TCT and sufficient proof of demand. The Regional Trial Court reversed, ordering DepEd to vacate and surrender possession, holding the Ontiveroses proved ownership and a better right through judicial admissions and evidence like tax receipts and declarations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s ruling. DepEd, through the Republic, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents proved their better right to possess the land.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding the Complaint for recovery of possession barred by prescription and laches.
3. Whether the Department of Education is a builder in good faith entitled to invoke Article 448, in relation to Article 546, of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition, finding no merit.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the Petition essentially raised questions of fact, which are generally barred in a Rule 45 petition. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts, which concluded that respondents proved a better right to possession by a preponderance of evidence, including TCT No. T-56997, relocation survey reports, tax receipts and declarations, and judicial admissions by DepEd. The Court emphasized that in an accion publiciana, the issue is the better right of possession, and the lower courts’ assessment of evidence on this point was binding.
2. On the second issue, the Court ruled that prescription did not bar the action. For an action for recovery of possession based on ownership (accion reivindicatoria), the prescriptive period is 30 years from the time the right of action accrues. Since respondents filed the Complaint in 2008 and DepEd’s possession began in the 1970s, the 30-year period had not lapsed. The Court also found laches inapplicable, as respondents had made demands for payment and to vacate, demonstrating they did not abandon their right.
3. On the third issue, the Court held that DepEd could not be considered a builder in good faith entitled to the rights under Article 448 of the Civil Code. A builder in good faith is one who builds on land believing themselves to be the owner. DepEd, as a government agency, was presumed to know respondents’ claim of ownership from the title and tax declarations. Furthermore, the Court cited precedent that the government cannot invoke good faith when it builds on private land without first acquiring it through expropriation or negotiated sale. DepEd’s occupation without compensation constituted a taking without due process. The proper remedy for DepEd was to initiate expropriation proceedings and pay just compensation, not to claim builder’s rights.