MODESTO v. URBINA (2010)
So, the
[J. Brion]
SUMMARY AND DOCTRINE
This case originates from a complaint of recovery of
possession filed by respondent Urbina against the
petitioners Modesto, with the RTC of Pasig
sometime in 1983.Urbina in his complaint alleged
that he was the owner of a parcel of land situated at
Lower Bicutan, Taguig. According to Urbina, the
Modestos, through stealth, scheme, and
machination, were able to occupy a portion of his
property. Thereafter, the Modestos negotiated with
Urbina for the sale of said lot. However, before the
parties could finalize the sale, the Modestos
allegedly cancelled the transaction and began
claiming ownership over the lot. The Modestos
claimed that Urbina could not be the lawful owner of
the lands because it was still government property,
being part of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation.
The RTC and the CA ruled in favor of Urbina. In
January 2010, the SC denied the Modestos petition
for review. However, on motion for reconsideration,
in light of the ruling of the Land Management
Bureau that the contested land was indeed part of
the military reservation, the SC reversed its previous
ruling and dismissed the complaint for recovery of
possession of Urbina.
Unless a public land is shown to have been
reclassified as alienable or actually alienated by the
State to a private person, that piece of land remains
part of the public domain, and its occupation in the
concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot
confer ownership or possessory rights. It is only
after the property has been declared alienable
and disposable that private persons can legally
claim possessory rights over it.
I. FACTS:
Urbina filed a civil case against the petitioners with the
RTC of Pasig. He alleged that the Modestos, through
stealth, scheme, and machination, occupied a portion
of a parcel of land that he owns located in Taguig.
Thereafter, the Modestos negotiated with Urbina for
the sale of this lot to them. However, before the
parties could finalize the sale, the Modestos allegedly
cancelled the transaction and began claiming
ownership over the lot. In their answer, the Modestos
claimed that Urbina could not be the lawful owner of
the property because it was still government property,
being a part of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation,
when Urbina allegedly claimed ownership to it. The
RTC rendered a decision in favor of Urbina, noting
that the petitioners recognized Urbina's possessory
rights over the property when they entered into a
negotiated contract of sale with him for the property.
Thus, they were estopped from subsequently
assailing or disclaiming Urbina's possessory rights
over this lot. The petitioners appealed to the CA,
which affirmed in toto the RTC decision.
petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari to the
SC. The SC denied the Modestos' petition, but the
petitioners filed again for a motion for reconsideration.
II. ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the land subject of the
controversy, is indeed, government property,
hence, cannot be privately owned.
2. Whether or not petitioner have a better right of
possession since they were in actual, adverse,
public, and continuous possession of the
property.
III. RATIO:
1. Yes. The SC upheld the factual findings of
the Land Management Bureau (LMB), the
administrative agency tasked with assisting the DENR
in the management and disposition of alienable an
disposable lands of the public domain when it
invalidated the claim of respondent of possessory
rights over said property since it was not yet alienable
and disposable lands prior to then President Cory
Aquino’s public declaration of P.D. No.172
reclassifying it to be alienable and disposable lands
on October 16, 1987.
Unless a public land is shown to have been
reclassified as alienable or actually alienated by the
State to a private person, that piece of land remains
part of the public domain, and its occupation in the
concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot confer
ownership or possessory rights. It is only after the
property has been declared alienable and disposable
that private persons can legally claim possessory
rights over it.
2. Yes. The Court resolved the issue by applying the
legal provisions covering the subject property
whichwas P.D. No. 172 implementing guidelines M.O.
No. 119 where one of the qualifications to ownership
is that one must have constructed a house in the
proclaimed area for disposition on or prior to January
6, 1986 and actually residing therein. As reported by
the special investigator and other land inspectors, it
was the Modestos who were the actual occupants of
the area unlike Urbina who never occupied the land
and instead has been residing in Makati City.
IV. DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the
motion and REINSTATE the petition. Consequently,
we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated
January 26, 2009 and Resolution dated October 5,
2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
68007. We DISMISS the complaint for Recovery of
Possession filed by Carlos T. Urbina for lack of merit.