Pilar Dev’t Corp. v.

Dumadag
G.R. No. 194336 – Mar. 11, 2013
Third Division | J. Peralta

Digest Author: Miguel Mozo

Topic: Limitations: Easements

   
Case Summary: The petitioner owned Pillar Village Subdivision at Las Piñas where the respondents allegedly
built their shanties without the petitioner’s knowledge or consent. Thus, a Complaint for accion publiciana was
filed against the respondents.

The respondents denied the material allegations of the Complaint asserting that it’s the local government and
not the petitioner, which has jurisdiction and authority over them. RTC dismissed the complaint saying that the
land in question is situated on the sloping area leading down a creek and within the three-meter legal easement
and thus, it’s considered as public property and part of public dominion under Article 502 of the New Civil
Code. With this, only the local government of Las Pinas City could insititute an action for recovery of
possession or ownership.

CA dismissed the case but noted that the proper party to seek recovery of the property is not the City of Las
Pinas but the Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG pursuant to Section 101 of the Commonwealth Act
(C.A.) No. 141 otherwise known as the Public Land Act.

The issue is WoN the land in question is part of public property and the Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

Petitioner cited Article 630 of the Civil Code which provides the general rule that the owner of the estate retains
the ownership of the portion of the easement established. On the other hand, Article 635 says that “all matters
concerning easements established for public or communal use shall be governed by the special laws and
regulations relating thereto.”

In the case at bar, the applicable special laws are DENR A.O. No. 99021 dated June 11, 1999 which prescribed
the guidelines for the implementation of P.D. Nos. 705 and 1067, which were issued for biodiversity
preservation, P.D. 1216, and P.D. 1067 or The Water Code of the Philippines, all of which state that such 3-
meter allowance is reserved for public use. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the subject land is public
property. In relation to this, the Court held that respondents have no better right to the property as the petitioners
because it is public land.

Doctrines/Laws Involved: 

Doctrine: All matters concerning easements established for public or communal use shall be governed by the
special laws and regulations relating thereto

FACTS:

1|Page
 1. The petitioner owned Pillar Village Subdivision at Las Piñas where the respondents allegedly built their
shanties without the petitioner’s knowledge or consent. Thus, a Complaint for accion publiciana was
filed against the respondents.

2. The respondents denied the material allegations of the Complaint asserting that it’s the local government
and not the petitioner, which has jurisdiction and authority over them. RTC dismissed the complaint
saying that the land in question is situated on the sloping area leading down a creek and within the three-
meter legal easement and thus, it’s considered as public property and part of public dominion under
Article 502 of the New Civil Code. With this, only the local government of Las Pinas City could
insititute an action for recovery of possession or ownership.

3. CA dismissed the case but noted that the proper party to seek recovery of the property is not the City of
Las Pinas but the Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG pursuant to Section 101 of the
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 otherwise known as the Public Land Act.

ISSUES + HELD/RATIO:
1. W/N the land in question is part of public property. – YES.

 Petitioner cited Article 630 of the Civil Code which provides the general rule that the owner of the estate
retains the ownership of the portion of the easement established. On the other hand, Article 635 says that
“all matters concerning easements established for public or communal use shall be governed by the
special laws and regulations relating thereto.”

 In the case at bar, the applicable special laws are DENR A.O. No. 99021 dated June 11, 1999 which
prescribed the guidelines for the implementation of P.D. Nos. 705 and 1067, which were issued for
biodiversity preservation, P.D. 1216, and P.D. 1067 or The Water Code of the Philippines, all of which
state that such 3-meter allowance is reserved for public use. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the
subject land is public property. In relation to this, the Court held that respondents have no better right to
the property as the petitioners because it is public land.

DP:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The March 5, 2010 Decision and October 29, 2010 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 90254, which affirmed the May 30, 2007 Decision of the Las Piñas RTC,
Branch 197, dismissing petitioner's complaint, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., Abad, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.

2|Page