LEGAL RESEARCH

FACTS

Petitioner AAA, a resident in a certain community is known to be residing in a public land

uninterrupted and peaceful for fifteen years. AAA established a cemented house along with her
plants on the subject property in good faith. Thus, the possession is continuous and notorious.
However, one day, a government agency claims ownership over the land with talks of ejectment on
the grounds of utilizing it for public use. As a response, AAA files a petition to support his ownership.

ISSUES

- Whether or not petitioner has better right of ownership to the property

- Whether or not the government can eject the petitioner

HELD

 YES. Petitioner has the better right of ownership over the property since petitioner has been
in possession of the property for fifteen years. The law says immovable property can be
acquired through prescription provided that it is in your possession for ten years. In this
case, the petitioner is the possessor in good faith for over ten years which makes him/her
the owner of the land by acquisitive prescription.

 YES. Provided, however, that the said government agency is a competent authority and
there is observance of the due process of law before expropriating the subject property. The
government must also indemnify petitioner with just compensation.

APPLICABLE LAWS

 Article 1106 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the
manner and under the conditions laid down by law.

In the same way, rights and conditions are lost by prescription. (1930a)

 Article 1117 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be ordinary or extraordinary.

Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of things in good faith and with just title
for the time fixed by law. (1940a)

 Article 1134 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary
prescription through possession of ten years. (1957a)

 Art. 435 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use
and always upon payment of just compensation. Should this requirement be not first
complied with, the courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his
possession.
JURISPUDENCE

A case on acquisitive prescription:

 Marcelo v. Court of Appeals 105 SCAD 561, 305 SCRA 800 (1999)

A case on expropriation where the courts allowed the exercise of eminent domain because its
requisites were observed:

 PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation v. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines

G.R. No. 224936, September 4, 2019

Facts:

NGCP needed to expropriate a parcel of land in Bataan and Batangas to construct

Mariveles-Limay 230 kV Transmission Line Project.

The lot is part of the Petrochemical Industrial Park. This Park was originally part of the
public domain reserved by the government for the Lamao Horticultural Experiment Station in
1919. The area's administration was finally transferred to PNOC (PD 949).

In 2011, NGCP filed a complaint against PAFC to expropriate the land, exercising its right
of eminent domain (Section 4, RA 9511). PAFC argued that the land is already used for a
public purpose.

Issue:

(1) W/N PAFC was correct in filing its Rule 45 Petition directly before the Court

(2) W/N NGCP is empowered to expropriate the subject property under R.A. No. 9511.

Held: Petition is denied and NGCP is allowed to expropriate the subject property.

(1) PAFC did not commit a procedural error in filing the instant appeal via a Rule 45 petition
directly before the Court. PAFC raises the argument that the expropriation of the subject
property by respondent NGCP is invalid because such exercise of eminent domain was
neither done directly by Congress nor pursuant to a specific grant of authority. It is readily
apparent that this primary argument is legal in nature. The instant Petition may be decided by
dealing purely with questions of law.

(2) The Congress may delegate the exercise of the power to government agencies, public
officials and quasi-public entities. Section 4 of R.A. No. 9511 is clear, plain, and free from
any ambiguity. Respondent NGCP is allowed to exercise the right of eminent domain only
with respect to private property.