TEOFILO C.

VILLARICO VS VIVENCIO SARMIENTO

G.R. NO. 136438
11 NOV 2004

FACTS:
Teofilo C. Villarico, the petitioner, was the owner of a lot that was separated from the
Ninoy Aquino Avenue (highway) by a strip of land belonging to the government. The
DPWH constructed stairways at several portions of the strip of public land to enable
the people to have access to the highway.
Subsequently, the petitioner acquired a portion of the same area owned by the
government by means of Deed of Exchange of Real Property.
However, before the said acquisition, Sarmiento, et.al, the herein respondents,
already had a building constructed on a portion of the same area owned by the
government.
The petitioner then filed with the RTC Branch 259, Paranaque City a complaint for
accion publiciana against the respondents alleging that the latter’s structures on the
government land closed his right of way to the Ninoy Aquino Avenue and encroached
on a portion of his lot.
The respondents denied the allegations, claiming that they have been issued
licenses and permits to construct their buildings in the area and that the petitioner
has no right over the subject property belonging to the government.
After the trial, the RTC declared the defendant to have better right of possession
over the subject land except for the portion acquired by the petitioner by means of
Dead of Exchange of Real Property, ordered the defendant to vacate the portion of
the subject premises and dismissed the claim for damages of the plaintiff against the
defendant.
On appeal by the petitioner, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject property of public dominion may be the object of
possession.
HELD:
No. The SC denied the petition and affirmed with modification the decision of CA in
the sense that neither the petitioner nor the respondents have a right of possession
over the disputed lot as it is a property of public dominion.
It is not disputed that the lot on which the petitioner’s alleged right of way belongs to
the state or property of public dominion. Property of public dominion as defined by
the Civil Code are those property intended for public use and those belonging to the
State, without being for public use, are intended for sone public service or the
development of the national wealth.
Public use is “not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite
public. Records show that the lot on which the stairways were built is for the use of
the people as a passageway to the highway. Hence, a property of public dominion.
Property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man hence it cannot be the
subject matter of a contract, or leased, or alienated and cannot be burdened by any
voluntary easement.
Considering that the lot where the stairways were constructed is a property of public
dominion, it can not be burdened by a voluntary easement of right of way in favor of
the petitioner. The petitioner cannot appropriate it for himself. Verily, he can not claim
any right of possession over it. As stated in Article 530 of the Civil Code, “Only things
and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of
possession.”