Title: Pilar Devlopment Corp. v Dumadag, et a l. GR No. 194336 Date: March 11, 2013 Ponente: Peralta, J. Parties: Petitioner: Pilar Development Corporation Respondents: Ramon Dumadag, Emma Bacabac, Ronaldo Navarro, Jimmy Pagdalian, Pay delos Santos, Armando Trillos, Felicisimo Trillos, Arcangel Flores, Eddie Martin, Presilla Layog, Conrado Caguyong, Gina Gonzales, Arlene Pedrosa, Jocelyn Abelino, Roque Villaraza, Villaraza, Rolando Villaraza, Villaraza, Camilo Genove, Genove, Nilda Roayana, Susan Susan Roayana, Juancho Juancho Panganiban, Bong de Guzman, Arnold Enverso, Donna dela Raza, Emelyn Hagnaya, Freddie de Leon, Ronillo de Leon, Mario Martinez, and Precy Lopez Facts: The petitioner owned Pillar Village Subdivision at Las Piñas where the respondents allegedly built their shanties without the petitioner’s knowledge or consent. Thus, a Complaint for accion publiciana was filed against the respondents. The respondents denied the material allegations of the Complaint asserting that it’s the local government and not the petitioner, which has j urisdiction and authority over them. RTC dismissed the complaint saying that the land in question is situated on the sloping area leading down a creek and within the three-meter three-meter legal easement and thus, it’s conside red as public property and part of public dominion under Article 502 of the New Civil Code. With this, only the local government of Las Pinas City could insititute an action for recovery of possession or ownership. CA dismissed the case but noted that the proper party to seek recovery of the property is not the City of Las Pinas but the R epublic of the Philippines, through the OSG pursuant to Section 101 of the Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 otherwise known as the Public Land Act.
Issues: 1. WON the the land in question question is part of public property- YES. property- YES. 2. Who is the property property party entitled to institute institute the the case- the OSG or the LGU Ratio:
Petitioner used Article 630 of the Civil Code as it provides the general rule that the owner of the estate retains the owners hip of the portion of the easement established, Article 635 says that “all matters concerning easements established established for public or communal use shall be governed by the special laws and regulations relating thereto.” The app licable special laws are DENR A.O. No. 99 021 dated June 11, 1999 which prescribed the guidelines for the implementation of P.D. Nos. 705 and 1067 which was issued for biodiversity preservation, P.D. P.D. 1216 and P.D. 1067 or The Water Code of the Philippines all of which states that such 3 meter allowance is reserved for public use. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the subject land is public property. In relation to this, the Court held that respondents have no better right to the property as the petitioners because it is public land. With regard to the second issue, “both the OSG and the local government of Las Pinas City, may file an action depending on the purpose sought to be achieved. The former shall be responsible in case of action for reversion under C.A. 141, while the latter may also bring an action to enforce the relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992). Under RA No. 7279, all LGUs are mandated to evict and demolish persons or entities occupying dangerous areas including riverbanks. It also obliges the LGUS to strictly observe resettlement resettlement procedures and prohibition against new illegal structures in Sections 29 and 30 respectively. respectively. Else, there will be administrative administrative and criminal liability.” The Court suggests that petitioner should file an action for mandamus to compel the local government of Las Piñas City to enforce with reasonable dispatch the eviction of respondents under R.A. 7279. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
