The Mendozas allowed land they owned to be used for a public school starting in 1957. In the 1960s, they subdivided the land but included a lot for the local government. Though no title was issued, the government took possession. In the late 1990s, the Mendozas tried to evict the school. The courts initially sided with the Mendozas based on their title. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the Mendozas waived their right to the land by allowing government use and subdivision. Though ownership wasn't formally transferred, the government was entitled to possession until paying just compensation, which the RTC would determine.
The Mendozas allowed land they owned to be used for a public school starting in 1957. In the 1960s, they subdivided the land but included a lot for the local government. Though no title was issued, the government took possession. In the late 1990s, the Mendozas tried to evict the school. The courts initially sided with the Mendozas based on their title. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the Mendozas waived their right to the land by allowing government use and subdivision. Though ownership wasn't formally transferred, the government was entitled to possession until paying just compensation, which the RTC would determine.
The Mendozas allowed land they owned to be used for a public school starting in 1957. In the 1960s, they subdivided the land but included a lot for the local government. Though no title was issued, the government took possession. In the late 1990s, the Mendozas tried to evict the school. The courts initially sided with the Mendozas based on their title. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the Mendozas waived their right to the land by allowing government use and subdivision. Though ownership wasn't formally transferred, the government was entitled to possession until paying just compensation, which the RTC would determine.
The Mendozas allowed land they owned to be used for a public school starting in 1957. In the 1960s, they subdivided the land but included a lot for the local government. Though no title was issued, the government took possession. In the late 1990s, the Mendozas tried to evict the school. The courts initially sided with the Mendozas based on their title. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the Mendozas waived their right to the land by allowing government use and subdivision. Though ownership wasn't formally transferred, the government was entitled to possession until paying just compensation, which the RTC would determine.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
- November 1998: the Mendozas demanded that PPS vacate the
property. PPS refused to do so.
Full Case Title: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Education Division of Lipa City (for Paninsingin Primary School) vs. Primo - January 1999: Mendozas filed a complaint with the MTCC of Lipa City Mendoza and Maria Lucero for unlawful detainer, with an application for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. Doctrines: 1. Where the owner agrees voluntarily to the taking of his property by Republic’s argument: the government for public use, he waives his right to the institution That even if no title was issued in the name of the City Government of Lipa, of a formal expropriation proceeding covering such property. the Mendozas had relinquished their rights over the lot as evidenced by the 2. It is the RTC that can determine just compensation based on the evidence presented before it in an ordinary civil action for recovery consolidation and subdivision plan. Furthermore: of possession of property or its value and damages. - The property had been tax-declared in the name of the City Government; and Recit - Ready Summary: Landowners give land to the State to build a school, - That the PPS had built significant, permanent improvements on such and then subsequently try to take it back. They file an action for unlawful lot. detainer, and after procedural setbacks, the SC holds that they may not - Such improvements were also tax declared. regain ownership of the property since they are considered to have waived a formal expropriation proceeding but must still cede the land. Mendozas’ argument: That although PPS had sought permission from them to use the property as Facts: the school site, they had never relinquished their right to it. They argued that - Paninsingin Primary School (PPS) is a public school operated by the they allowed PPS to occupy the property because they had no such use for the Republic of the Philippines. lot at the time being. Therefore, they had let it remain registered in their name o It has been using 1,149 sqm of land in Lipa City, Batangas since under the original title. 1957. o However, the property (which straddled portions of two MTCC Ruling: Dismissed the complaint, on grounds that the Republic was different lots) were registered in the name of Primo and Maria immune from suit. Mendoza. - Mendozas appealed to RTC. - March 1962: the Mendozas caused the lots to be consolidated and - RTC ruled that Republic’s consent was not necessary since the action subdivided into four lots. The fourth lot was in favor of the City in the MTCC was not against it. Government of Lipa. - Mendozas filed with the MTCC a motion to render judgment, but was o The Register of deeds partially cancelled the former TCT and denied, saying that the RTC now had jurisdiction. issued new titles for the respective owners except for the City - RTC later remanded back to the MTCC, which dismissed the case for Government of Lipa. insufficiency of evidence. o In the meantime, PPS remained in possession of the property. - The Mendozas once again appealed to the RTC. o No one may acquire it from the registered owner by adverse, RTC Ruling: Found in favor of the Mendozas. Ordered PPS to vacate the open, and notorious possession. property. o Therefore, a registered owner under the Torrens system The RTC found that the Mendozas had the better right of possession since would have an imprescriptible right to recover possession of they were its registered owners, while PPS could not produce any document the registered property because possession is a mere to prove the transfer of ownership of the land in its favor. MR was denied. The consequence of ownership. Republic through the OSG appealed to the CA. - The Court noted that the Mendozas’ title over the property has not CA Ruling: Affirmed the RTC Decision. been disputed. The Republic admitted that no new title was issued to Upheld the Torrens system, in that the Mendozas’ registered title was it. indefeasible and imprescriptible nature of their right to eject any person o Tax declarations over the property and improvements cannot occupying the property. defeat the Mendozas’ title. The CA held that therefore, the Republic’s possession of the property through o As per jurisprudence, tax declarations stand as proof of PPS should be deemed one borne of tolerance, which could not possibly ripen ownership only when there is no certificate of title. Otherwise, into ownership. they have little evidentiary weight as proof of ownership. They also rejected based on the lack of evidence presented to prove the transfer of the property in favor of the government. However, the Court held that the CA erred in ordering the eviction. - The government never took steps to have the title to the property - The evidence on record shows intention on the part of the Mendozas issued in its name, or have their right as owner annotated on the to cede the property permanently. Mendozas’ title. o Evidenced by their allowing the city to declare the property in - The CA held that through omission, the Republic is held in estoppel to its name for tax purposes. claim that the Mendozas were barred by laches from bringing its o Also, when they sought to have the lot subdivided, the action. Mendozas earmarked a lot for the City Government of Lipa. o Given these acts, the Court assumed that the Mendozas MR was denied, and therefore the Republic raised the petition to the Supreme agreed to transfer ownership of the land to the government, Court via Rule 45. and never got around to do so, while the Republic forgot about it. Issue/s: Whether or not the Mendozas were entitled to evict the Republic o As a consequence, the Republic should be deemed entitled to from the subject property. (No) possession, pending formal transfer of ownership to it upon payment of just compensation. Ratio/ Legal Basis: - The Court held that where the owner agrees voluntarily to the taking - First the Court defined a decree of registration as one conclusive upon of his property by the government for public use, he waives his right all persons, in that a title to land when registered is imprescriptible. to the institution of a formal expropriation proceeding covering such property. o The Court cited Eusebio v. Luis, where failure to question the lack of expropriation proceedings covering a government had taken constitutes a waiver of the right to gain back possession. o The Mendozas’ remedy is an action for the payment of just compensation. o The Court also cited Republic vs. CA that the RTC has the power to award just compensation even in the absence of a proper expropriation proceeding. The Court said 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 fixed, it is settled that where property was taken without the benefit of expropriation proceedings and its owner filed 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. - Since the MTCC did not have jurisdiction to evict the Republic, or to hear and adjudicate the right to the Mendozas’ right to just compensation, the CA erred in dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer dismissed without prejudice to filing a proper action for recovery of just compensation.
Disposition: 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 filing an action for payment of just compensation against the Republic of the Philippines or, when appropriate, against the City of Lipa.