Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROPW4
PROPW4
Facts:
City of Manila owner in fee simple of a parcel of land known as Lot 1, Block 557 of
Cadastral Survey of City of Manila, containing an area of 9689.80 sqm. On various dates in 1927,
City of Manila sold portions of the parcel of land. When the last sale was effected August 1924,
Transfer Certificate of Title 22547 covering the residue of the land 7490.10 sam was issued in
the name of City of Manila.
On September 1960, Municipal Board of Manila adopted a resolution requesting the
President to consider the feasibility of declaring the land under Transfer Certificate of Title
25545-25547 as patrimonial property of Manila for the purpose of selling these lots to the
actual occupants thereof. The bill became Republic Act 4118, converting the land from
communal property to disposable and alienable land of State.
City of Manila, for some reasons, brought an action to restrain, prohibit, and enjoin Land
Authority and Register of Deeds from implementing RA 4118, and praying for the declaration of
RA 4118 as unconstitutional.
Trial court declared RA 4118 to be unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that it
deprived City of its property without due process of law and payment of just compensation.
Land Authority and Register of Deeds argued that the land is a communal land, or a
portion of public domain owned by State; that the land has not been used by City of Manila for
any public purpose; that it was originally a communal land not because it was needed in
connection with its organisation as a municipality but rather for the common use of its
inhabitants; that the City mayor merely enjoys the usufruct over said land and its exercise of
acts of ownership by selling parts thereof did not necessarily convert the land into a patrimonial
property of City of Manila nor divert the State of its paramount title.
Issue:
Whether the aforementioned land is a private or patrimonial property of the City of Manila.
Held:
The land is public property.
As a general rule, regardless of the source or classification of the land in the possession
of municipality, excepting those which it acquired in its own funds in its private or corporate
capacity, such property is held for the State for the benefit of its inhabitants, whether it be for
governmental or proprietary purposes. The legal situation is the same if the State itself holds
the property and puts it to a different use.
When it comes to property of municipality which it did not acquire in its private or
corporate capacity with its own funds, the legislature can transfer its administration and
disposition to an agency of the National Government to be disposed of according to its
discretion. Here it did so in obedience to the constitutional mandate of promoting social justice
to insure the well-being and economic security of the people.
The property was not acquired by the City of Manila with its own funds in its private or
proprietary capacity. The land was part of the territory of City of Manila granted by sovereign in
its creation. Furthermore, City expressly recognised the paramount title of the State over its
land when it requested the President to consider the feasibility of declaring the lot as
patrimonial property for selling.
There could be no more blatant recognition of the fact that said land belongs to the
State and was simply granted in usufruct to the City of Manila for municipal purposes. But since
the City did not actually use said land for any recognized public purpose and allowed it to
remain idle and unoccupied for a long time until it was overrun by squatters, no presumption of
State grant of ownership in favor of the City of Manila may be acquiesced in to justify the claim
that it is its own private or patrimonial property.
Facts:
Respondents all surnamed Coronado, are the legal heirs of Doroteo Garcia. They filed a
complaint for Annulment of Title and/or Reconveyance against petitioner that Doroteo Garcia
owned a parcel of land located at Antipolo City. After Garcia's death, the respondents
maintained the ownership of the said land, but later discovered that a portion of the land was
registered in the name of a certain Gaudencio T. Bocobo. Respondents prayed that this TCT be
declared null and void.
In its answer, petitioner averred that it issued a performance bond in favor of Gaudencio
T. Bocobo which was secured by a real estate mortgage over the said land. Before it conformed
to the mortgage, it verified and examined Bocobo's title and found it to be free from any
suspicion. When Bocobo failed to pay his obligations, petitioner forclosed the mortgage and
that no other person had claimed interest over the property.
Issue:
i. Whether or not the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing
respondents complaint and disregarding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title.
ii. Whether or not the lower court erred in not ruling that respondents claim was barred
by prescription and laches.
Ruling:
Yes. Initially, we confront the issue of whether the action has prescribed, considering
that several years have already passed since TCT No. N-19781 was issued, and petitioners title
has already become indefeasible and incontrovertible. The contention apparently lacks merit.
The records reveal that the respondents have been in possession of the subject property since
1938. Jurisprudence abounds in holding that, if a person claiming to be the owner is in actual
possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to
the property, does not prescribe.
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 140228. November 19, 2004]