SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 185091. August 9, 2010.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DIVISION OF LIPA CITY (FOR
PANINSINGIN PRIMARY SCHOOL) , petitioner, vs . PRIMO MENDOZA
and MARIA LUCERO , respondents.

DECISION

ABAD , J : p

This case is about the propriety of ling an ejectment suit against the
Government for its failure to acquire ownership of a privately owned property that it
had long used as a school site and to pay just compensation for it.
The Facts and the Case
Paninsingin Primary School (PPS) is a public school operated by petitioner
Republic of the Philippines (the Republic) through the Department of Education. PPS
has been using 1,149 square meters of land in Lipa City, Batangas since 1957 for its
school. But the property, a portion of Lots 1923 and 1925, were registered in the name
of respondents Primo and Maria Mendoza (the Mendozas) under Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) T-11410. 1
On March 27, 1962 the Mendozas caused Lots 1923 and 1925 to be
consolidated and subdivided into four lots, as follows:
Lot 1 — 292 square meters in favor of Claudia Dimayuga;
Lot 2 — 292 square meters in favor of the Mendozas;
Lot 3 — 543 square meters in favor of Gervacio Ronquillo; and
Lot 4 — 1,149 square meters in favor of the City Government of Lipa. 2
As a result of subdivision, the Register of Deeds partially cancelled TCT T-11410
and issued new titles for Lots 1 and 3 in favor of Dimayuga and Ronquillo, respectively.
Lot 2 remained in the name of the Mendozas but no new title was issued in the name of
the City Government of Lipa for Lot 4. 3 Meantime, PPS remained in possession of the
property. IaESCH

The Republic claimed that, while no title was issued in the name of the City
Government of Lipa, the Mendozas had relinquished to it their right over the school lot
as evidenced by the consolidation and subdivision plan. Further, the property had long
been tax-declared in the name of the City Government and PPS built signi cant,
permanent improvements on the same. These improvements had also been tax-
declared. 4
The Mendozas claim, on the other hand, that although PPS sought permission
from them to use the property as a school site, they never relinquished their right to it.
They allowed PPS to occupy the property since they had no need for it at that time.
Thus, it has remained registered in their name under the original title, TCT T-11410,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 which had only been partially cancelled.
On November 6, 1998 the Mendozas wrote PPS, demanding that it vacate the
disputed property. 5 When PPS declined to do so, on January 12, 1999 the Mendozas
filed a complaint with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Lipa City in Civil Case
0002-99 against PPS for unlawful detainer with application for temporary restraining
order and writ of preliminary injunction. 6
On July 13, 1999 the MTCC rendered a decision, dismissing the complaint on
ground of the Republic's immunity from suit. 7 The Mendozas appealed to the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City which ruled that the Republic's consent was not necessary
since the action before the MTCC was not against it. 8
In light of the RTC's decision, the Mendozas led with the MTCC a motion to
render judgment in the case before it. 9 The MTCC denied the motion, however, saying
that jurisdiction over the case had passed to the RTC upon appeal. 1 0 Later, the RTC
remanded the case back to the MTCC, 1 1 which then dismissed the case for
insu ciency of evidence. 1 2 Consequently, the Mendozas once again appealed to the
RTC in Civil Case 2001-0236.
On June 27, 2006 the RTC found in favor of the Mendozas and ordered PPS to
vacate the property. It held that the Mendozas had the better right of possession since
they were its registered owners. PPS, on the other hand, could not produce any
document to prove the transfer of ownership of the land in its favor. 1 3 PPS moved for
reconsideration, but the RTC denied it.
The Republic, through the O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC
decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 96604 on the grounds that: (1) the
Mendozas were barred by laches from recovering possession of the school lot; (2)
su cient evidence showed that the Mendozas relinquished ownership of the subject
lot to the City Government of Lipa City for use as school; and (3) Lot 4, Pcs-5019 has
long been declared in the name of the City Government since 1957 for taxation
purposes. 1 4
In a decision dated February 26, 2008, the CA a rmed the RTC decision. 1 5
Upholding the Torrens system, it emphasized the indefeasibility of the Mendozas'
registered title and the imprescriptible nature of their right to eject any person
occupying the property. The CA held that, this being the case, the Republic's possession
of the property through PPS should be deemed merely a tolerated one that could not
ripen into ownership. DIEcHa

The CA also rejected the Republic's claim of ownership since it presented no

documentary evidence to prove the transfer of the property in favor of the government.
Moreover, even assuming that the Mendozas relinquished their right to the property in
1957 in the government's favor, the latter never took steps to have the title to the
property issued in its name or have its right as owner annotated on the Mendozas' title.
The CA held that, by its omissions, the Republic may be held in estoppel to claim that
the Mendozas were barred by laches from bringing its action.
With the denial of its motion for reconsideration, the Republic has taken recourse
to this Court via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The Issue Presented
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in holding that the Mendozas
were entitled to evict the Republic from the subject property that it had used for a public
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 school.
The Court's Ruling
A decree of registration is conclusive upon all persons, including the Government
of the Republic and all its branches, whether or not mentioned by name in the
application for registration or its notice. 1 6 Indeed, title to the land, once registered, is
imprescriptible. 1 7 No one may acquire it from the registered owner by adverse, open,
and notorious possession. 1 8 Thus, to a registered owner under the Torrens system, the
right to recover possession of the registered property is equally imprescriptible since
possession is a mere consequence of ownership.
Here, the existence and genuineness of the Mendozas' title over the property has
not been disputed. While the consolidation and subdivision plan of Lots 1923 and 1925
shows that a 1,149 square meter lot had been designated to the City Government, the
Republic itself admits that no new title was issued to it or to any of its subdivisions for
the portion that PPS had been occupying since 1957. 1 9
That the City Government of Lipa tax-declared the property and its improvements
in its name cannot defeat the Mendozas' title. This Court has allowed tax declarations
to stand as proof of ownership only in the absence of a certi cate of title. 2 0 Otherwise,
they have little evidentiary weight as proof of ownership. 2 1
The CA erred, however, in ordering the eviction of PPS from the property that it
had held as government school site for more than 50 years. The evidence on record
shows that the Mendozas intended to cede the property to the City Government of Lipa
permanently. In fact, they allowed the city to declare the property in its name for tax
purposes. And when they sought in 1962 to have the bigger lot subdivided into four, the
Mendozas earmarked Lot 4, containing 1,149 square meters, for the City Government
of Lipa. Under the circumstances, it may be assumed that the Mendozas agreed to
transfer ownership of the land to the government, whether to the City Government of
Lipa or to the Republic, way back but never got around to do so and the Republic itself
altogether forgot about it. Consequently, the Republic should be deemed entitled to
possession pending the Mendozas' formal transfer of ownership to it upon payment of
just compensation. aHICDc

The Court holds that, where the owner agrees voluntarily to the taking of his
property by the government for public use, he thereby waives his right to the institution
of a formal expropriation proceeding covering such property. Further, as the Court also
held in Eusebio v. Luis , 2 2 the failure for a long time of the owner to question the lack of
expropriation proceedings covering a property that the government had taken
constitutes a waiver of his right to gain back possession. The Mendozas' remedy is an
action for the payment of just compensation, not ejectment.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals , 2 3 the Court a rmed the RTC's
power to award just compensation even in the absence of a proper expropriation
proceeding. It held that the RTC can determine just compensation based on the
evidence presented before it in an ordinary civil action for recovery of possession of
property or its value and damages. As to the time when just compensation should be
xed, it is settled that where property was taken without the bene t of expropriation
proceedings and its owner led an action for recovery of possession before the
commencement of expropriation proceedings, it is the value of the property at the time
of taking that is controlling. 2 4
Since the MTCC did not have jurisdiction either to evict the Republic from the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 land it had taken for public use or to hear and adjudicate the Mendozas' right to just
compensation for it, the CA should have ordered the complaint for unlawful detainer
dismissed without prejudice to their ling a proper action for recovery of such
compensation.
WHEREFORE , the Court partially GRANTS the petition, REVERSES the February
26, 2008 decision and the October 20, 2008 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. 96604, and ORDERS the dismissal of respondents Primo and Maria Mendoza's
action for eviction before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Lipa City in Civil Case
0002-99 without prejudice to their ling an action for payment of just compensation
against the Republic of the Philippines or, when appropriate, against the City of Lipa.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, Villarama, Jr., * Perez ** and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
*Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per
raffle dated July 28, 2010.
**Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per raffle
dated July 28, 2010.
1.Rollo, p. 46.
2.Id. at 48.

3.Id. at 46-48.
4.Id. at 49-50; Tax Declaration (TD) 00491 issued in 1989, cancelled by TD 01914 (for the lot)
and TD 0915 (for the buildings), and further cancelled by TD 00748 issued in 1995.
5.Id. at 53.

6.Id. at 52-56.
7.Id. at 57-59.
8.Id. at 60-67.

9.CA rollo, pp. 74-77.

10.Id. at 49-51.

11.Rollo, pp. 68-70.

12.Id. at 71-74.

13.CA rollo, pp. 58-63. Penned by Judge Jane Aurora C. Lantion.

14.Id. at 2-21.
15.Rollo, pp. 24-36. Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and concurred in by
Associate Justices Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
16.Amending and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for Other
Purposes, Presidential Decree No. 1529, [P.D. No. 1529], § 31, ¶ 2.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 17.Section 47 of P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree.
18.Id. at § 47.
19.Rollo, p. 11.

20.Republic of the Philippines v. Catarroja, G.R. No. 171774, February 12, 2010. In this case, the
tax declaration could stand as evidence of ownership because the certificate of title was
never reconstituted after its loss and no proof that it had ever been issued by a valid land
registration court; and in Aguirre v. Heirs of Lucas Villanueva, G.R. No. 169898, October
27, 2006, 505 SCRA 855, 861-862, only tax declarations were presented to prove
ownership along with actual possession.
21.Arbias v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173808, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 582,
593-594.
22.G.R. No. 162474, October 13, 2009, 603 SCRA 576, 584.

23.494 Phil. 494 (2005).

24.Supra note 22, at 586.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com