G.R. No. 185091
August 9, 2010
Facts
Paninsingin Primary School (PPS) is a public school who has been using a lot registered in the name of respondent spouses Mendoza. Subsequently, the Mendozas caused the subdivision of his lots which includes the lot occupied by the petitioner. Hence, the TCT of the Mendozas were partially cancelled. However, no new TCT was issued in the name of petitioner. Still, the petitioner is in possession of the property.
Thereafter, the Mendozas filed a complaint with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) against PPS for unlawful detainer with application for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. The MTCC dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence. On appeal, the RTC ruled 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. Subsequently, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.
Issue
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 school?
Held
NO. Registered land cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Under Section 47 of PD 1529, no title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
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. Indeed, title to the land, once registered, is imprescriptible. No one may acquire it from the registered owner by adverse, open, and notorious possession. 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.
In this case, the existence and genuineness of the Mendozas’ title over the property has not been disputed. On the other hand, the Republic cannot present a title to the property. While the consolidation and subdivision plan shows that the 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.
Therefore, the CA did NOT err in holding that the Mendozas were entitled to evict the Republic from the subject property that it had used for a public school.