- 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
Mendoza and Maria Lucero
Doctrines:
1. Where the owner agrees voluntarily to the taking of his property by
the government for public use, he waives his right to the institution
of a formal expropriation proceeding covering such property.
2. It is the RTC that 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.
Recit - Ready Summary: Landowners give land to the State to build a school,
and then subsequently try to take it back. They file an action for unlawful
detainer, and after procedural setbacks, the SC holds that they may not
regain ownership of the property since they are considered to have waived
a formal expropriation proceeding but must still cede the land.
Facts:
- Paninsingin Primary School (PPS) is a public school operated by the
Republic of the Philippines.
o It has been using 1,149 sqm of land in Lipa City, Batangas since
1957.
o However, the property (which straddled portions of two
different lots) were registered in the name of Primo and Maria
Mendoza.
- March 1962: the Mendozas caused the lots to be consolidated and
subdivided into four lots. The fourth lot was in favor of the City
Government of Lipa.
o The Register of deeds partially cancelled the former TCT and
issued new titles for the respective owners except for the City
Government of Lipa.
o In the meantime, PPS remained in possession of the property.
- January 1999: Mendozas filed a complaint with the MTCC of Lipa City
for unlawful detainer, with an application for temporary restraining
order and writ of preliminary injunction.
Republic’s argument:
That even if no title was issued in the name of the City Government of Lipa,
the Mendozas had relinquished their rights over the lot as evidenced by the
consolidation and subdivision plan. Furthermore:
- The property had been tax-declared in the name of the City
Government; and
- That the PPS had built significant, permanent improvements on such
lot.
- Such improvements were also tax declared.
Mendozas’ argument:
That although PPS had sought permission from them to use the property as
the school site, they had never relinquished their right to it. They argued that
they allowed PPS to occupy the property because they had no such use for the
lot at the time being. Therefore, they had let it remain registered in their name
under the original title.
MTCC Ruling: Dismissed the complaint, on grounds that the Republic was
immune from suit.
- Mendozas appealed to RTC.
- RTC ruled that Republic’s consent was not necessary since the action
in the MTCC was not against it.
- Mendozas filed with the MTCC a motion to render judgment, but was
denied, saying that the RTC now had jurisdiction.
- RTC later remanded back to the MTCC, which dismissed the case for
insufficiency of evidence.
- The Mendozas once again appealed to the RTC.

RTC Ruling: Found in favor of the Mendozas. Ordered PPS to vacate the
property.
The RTC found that the Mendozas had the better right of possession since
they were its registered owners, while PPS could not produce any document
to prove the transfer of ownership of the land in its favor. MR was denied. The
Republic through the OSG appealed to the CA.
CA Ruling: Affirmed the RTC Decision.
Upheld the Torrens system, in that the Mendozas’ registered title was
indefeasible and imprescriptible nature of their right to eject any person
occupying the property.
The CA held that therefore, the Republic’s possession of the property through
PPS should be deemed one borne of tolerance, which could not possibly ripen
into ownership.
They also rejected based on the lack of evidence presented to prove the
transfer of the property in favor of the government.
- The government never took steps to have the title to the property
issued in its name, or have their right as owner annotated on the
Mendozas’ title.
- The CA held that through omission, the Republic is held in estoppel to
claim that the Mendozas were barred by laches from bringing its
action.
MR was denied, and therefore the Republic raised the petition to the Supreme
Court via Rule 45.
Issue/s: Whether or not the Mendozas were entitled to evict the Republic
from the subject property. (No)
Ratio/ Legal Basis:
- First the Court defined a decree of registration as one conclusive upon
all persons, in that a title to land when registered is imprescriptible.
o No one may acquire it from the registered owner by adverse,
open, and notorious possession.
o Therefore, a registered owner under the Torrens system
would have an imprescriptible right to recover possession of
the registered property because possession is a mere
consequence of ownership.
- The Court noted that the Mendozas’ title over the property has not
been disputed. The Republic admitted that no new title was issued to
it.
o Tax declarations over the property and improvements cannot
defeat the Mendozas’ title.
o As per jurisprudence, tax declarations stand as proof of
ownership only when there is no certificate of title. Otherwise,
they have little evidentiary weight as proof of ownership.
However, the Court held that the CA erred in ordering the eviction.
- The evidence on record shows intention on the part of the Mendozas
to cede the property permanently.
o Evidenced by their allowing the city to declare the property in
its name for tax purposes.
o Also, when they sought to have the lot subdivided, the
Mendozas earmarked a lot for the City Government of Lipa.
o Given these acts, the Court assumed that the Mendozas
agreed to transfer ownership of the land to the government,
and never got around to do so, while the Republic forgot
about it.
o As a consequence, the Republic should be deemed entitled to
possession, pending formal transfer of ownership to it upon
payment of just compensation.
- The Court held that where the owner agrees voluntarily to the taking
of his property by the government for public use, he waives his right
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.