GR L 12754; (January, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12754; January 30, 1960
ESTANISLAO ALFONSO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PASAY CITY, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The parties submitted a stipulation of facts. Plaintiff Estanislao Alfonso is the registered owner of Lot No. 4368 (719.92 sq. meters) in Pasay City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1057 (30999). In 1925, the then Municipality of Pasay extended Park Avenue southward, and the extension passed through Lot No. 4368, converting it into part of the public street. No expropriation proceedings were instituted, and Alfonso was not paid any compensation. The lot has been continuously used as part of Park Avenue extension since 1925. Alfonso filed the present action on July 20, 1954, after the municipality (and its successor, Pasay City) failed to return the lot upon demand.
ISSUE
Whether the registered owner’s action to recover possession or compensation for his land, taken by the local government for public use without expropriation or payment since 1925, is barred by laches or prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision dismissing the complaint. The Court held:
1. Registered land is not subject to prescription. As the registered owner, Alfonso retained ownership and could bring an action to recover possession at any time, as possession is an attribute of ownership.
2. On grounds of equity, the government must pay for private property it appropriates for public use, regardless of the passage of time. The Court condemned the practice of government entities taking private property without legal expropriation or negotiated sale and then invoking prescription against the owner’s claim.
3. The basis for compensation is the value of the land at the time it was taken. Per the stipulation, the value in 1925 was P1.25 per square meter. Therefore, compensation is calculated by multiplying the area (719.92 sq. m.) by P1.25.
4. Damages are awarded in the form of legal interest on the compensation from 1925 until payment is made, due to the city’s failure to pay rent for its use.
5. Attorney’s fees of P400.00 are also awarded against Pasay City.
The Court found the case parallel to Herrera vs. Auditor General (102 Phil., 875), emphasizing that restoration of possession was no longer feasible as the land was used as a road, making payment of just compensation the only relief.