Date: March 9, 2020

To: Che-Che V. Timoteo

Legislative Assistance II
Office of Councilor Carmelino C. Del Mar, Jr.

Letter address to Mayor Jonas C. Cortes regarding the Tubigan

Subject: Banilad United Settlers Association on the wetland of Barangay
Banilad

LEGAL OPINION

This has reference to your letter dated March 05, 2020, requesting for this
Department’s legal opinion regarding the Tubigan Banilad United Settlers
Association. They are occupying the “Wetland” in Barangay Banilad, and they are
questioning the validity of the Land Title of the complainant in an ejectment case
involving the occupant therein.

According to the letter submitted by the association, they were in shock when
they found out that the land owned by the Government of Mandaue City wherein it
was declared as a Wet Land is now registered and owned by a Private Corporation
(Formosa Corporation). In their letter they disclosed that Formosa Corporation filed
an Ejectment Case against them before the First Level Court (MTC) last May 21,
2019.

In the legal issue presented before us, the settlers in Sitio Tubigan are
questioning the ownership of the complainant in an Ejectment case and calls for a
question of facts, which is beyond the scope of a legal opinion.

Whether or not the declaration of a

wetland would convert a privately
owned property into a government
property; and whether wetlands can
be sold, transferred or acquired by a
private person or a juridical entity

A wetland is a place where the land is covered by water, either salt, fresh or
somewhere in between. Marshes and ponds, the edge of a lake or ocean, the delta at
the mouth of a river, low-lying areas that frequently flood—all of these are wetlands.

When the Mandaue City Government declared the land in Banilad,

Cabancalan and Nasipit, they did not acquire the property, but rather the City
Government merely regulated the use of the land through City Planning and Land
use. The Ordinance No. 09-2002-125 and 12-2013-809 are not confiscatory in
character, but are only “regulatory” in nature. The regulatory aspect of the
legislation should not be misconstrued as violating ones constitutional right of
enjoyment and beneficial use of the property much less payment of some
compensatory damages in view of the foregoing. This aside, the fact that several land
uses is still allowed.

The enactment of the City Ordinance in the declaration of a wetland did not
divest the registered owners of their right over their property. The City of Mandaue

1
merely regulated the use. It does not deprive the landowner from using it, but it
instructs him/her/it of the kinds or forms of usage through the determination of the
appropriate land use for the subject area it uses and zoning classification.

There is no taking of the land from the registered owners thereof, but rather
merely regulated the use of the land. It does not take away the basic rights of
ownership under the Civil Code of the Philippines, namely: the right to use, right to
abuse, right to possess, right to the fruits, right to dispose and sell, right to use the
land as a mortgage in a loan.

The registered owner of a land can validly file a case for ejectment because
the illegal occupation of the said parcel of land and refusal to vacate the same and to
peacefully surrender possession thereof to the registered owner is a cause of action
against the informal settlers of the land. The allegation of the residents of Sitio
Tubigan wherein they have been residing therein for over 17 years, they cannot
validly claim that they acquired ownership through occupation.

If indeed the property is registered under the Torrens System of Land

registration, the title to the land becomes imprescriptible under Section 47 of P.D.
1529, which provides, “No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the
registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession”. A title,
once registered cannot be defeated by prescription. The title, once registered, is notice
to the world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead ignorance of
registration.1

Whether or not FORMOSA

CORPORATION could validly file a
case for ejectment against the settlers of
Sitio Tubigan;

In the case of EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM vs. SPOUSES ANASTACIO

PERLABARBARONA, G.R. No. 195814, April 04, 2018, the Supreme Court held
that:
By its very nature, an ejectment case only resolves the issue of who
has the better right of possession over the property. The right of possession in
this instance refers to actual possession, not legal possession. While a party
may later be proven to have the legal right of possession by virtue of
ownership, he or she must still institute an ejectment case to be able to
dispossess an actual occupant of the property who refuses to vacate.
In Mediran v. Villanueva:2

Juridically speaking, possession is distinct from ownership, and from

this distinction are derived legal consequences of much importance. In giving
recognition to the action of forcible entry and detainer the purpose of the law
is to protect the person who in fact has actual possession; and in case of
controverted right, it requires the parties to preserve the status quo until one
or the other of them sees fit to invoke the decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction upon the question of ownership. It is obviously just that the person
who has first acquired possession should remain in possession pending this
decision; and the parties cannot be permitted meanwhile to engage in a petty
warfare over the possession of the property, which is the subject of dispute.
1
Legarda vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil 590.
2
37 Phil. 752 (1918)

2
 To permit this would be highly dangerous to individual security and
disturbing to social order. Therefore, where a person supposes himself to be
the owner of a piece of property and desires to vindicate his ownership against
the party actually in possession, it is incumbent upon him to institute an action
to this end in a court of competent jurisdiction; and he [cannot] be permitted,
by invading the property and excluding the actual possessor, to place upon the
latter the burden of instituting an action to try the property right.

A certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of ownership and as owners, they

are entitled to possession of the property.

We hope that we have addressed your concern accordingly.

Respectfully,

MANDAUE CITY LEGAL OFFICE

By:

ATTY. NENITA CENIZA-LAYESE

City Legal Officer

ATTY. ATHENA SALAS-DURAN

Assisting Lawyer