G.R. No.

205664
9 June 2014
Department of Education (represented by its Regional Director Teresita Domalanta) v.
Mariano Tuliao
Mendoza, J.

Facts:
On 8 October 2002, Mariano Tuliao filed an action for recovery of possession and removal of
structure with damages against the Department of Education (DepEd) with the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities of Tuguegarao City (MTCC) alleging that a portion of the parcel of land registered
in his name was allowed by his predecessors-in-interest to be used by Atuluyan Elementary
School (AES) as an access road for the schoolchildren. He said that upon discovering in 1999,
however, that a gymnasium was being constructed on the land, he demanded that the DepEd
cease and desist and vacate the property, but which the DepEd refused. He likewise demanded
rental payment, but which was ignored.

In its defense, DepEd denied the allegations of Tuliao and averred that there was no state of
action and even if there was, it was already barred by prescription and/or laches. Its occupation
of the subject land was adverse, peaceful, continuous, and in the concept of an owner for more
than fifty (50) years.

On 26 January 2010, the MTCC ruled that Tuliao was the registered owner of the subject
property and, thus, had a right of action against the holder and possessor of the said property
as DepEd’s possession was merely tolerated by Tuliao. The structures, however, should not be
allowed to be immediately removed until the options in in Article 448 of the New Civil Code to
either appropriate the building by paying the indemnity required by law or sell the land to the
builder has been exercised.

Thereafter, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MTCC decision.
It wrote that Tuliao was able to present evidence establishing a definite and unmistakable
identification of the land and its ownership over that subject property. Nevertheless, it
suggested that the DepEd be requested to pay Tuliao the just compensation of the land as it
was the paramount interest of the pupils that will be prejudiced by the finality and execution of
the appealed decision.

The DepEd elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule
42. The CA affirmed the RTC decision as only Tuliao presented a certificate of title as well as tax
declaration and real property receipts for the years 2003-2005, which pieces of evidence
resolved the issue of who had the better right of possession.

Issue/s:
1. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s decision that Tuliao had a better right to the
property?
2. Whether Tuliao’s claim is barred by laches due to the uninterrupted possession of AES for at
least 32 years?

Held:

1. No.

As between a certificate of title, which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership, accompanied

with a tax declaration and a tax receipt on one hand, and a testimony of a lone witness who is a
retired teacher on the other, the former prevails in establishing who has a better right of
possession over the property following the rule that testimonial evidence cannot prevail over
documentary evidence.

The DepEd only presented testimonial evidence and nothing more to prove its defense and
refute Tuliao’s claim.

2. No.

The claim that the DepEd’s possession of a portion of Tuliao’s land to be used a s a passageway
for the students was merely tolerated was not refuted. This means that the DepEd’s possession
was not truly adverse.

Furthermore, as the Court once ruled, mere material possession of the land is not adverse as
against the owner and was insufficient to vest title, unless such possession was accompanied by
the intent to possess as an owner. DepEd’s possession can only be considered as adverse from
the time the gymnasium was being constructed in 1999. Upon Tuliao’s discovery of the
construction in March 2002, he demanded that DepEd cease and desist from continuing the
same. Thus, only two years had elapsed. Clearly, Tuliao did not sleep on his rights as there was
no prolonged inaction that barred him from prosecution his claims.

Decision: Petition is denied.