Title: Pilar Devlopment Corp. v Dumadag, et al.

GR No. 194336
Date: March 11, 2013
Ponente: Peralta, J.
Parties:
Petitioner: Pilar Development Corporation
Respondents: Ramon Dumadag, Emma Bacabac, Ronaldo Navarro, Jimmy Pagdalian, Pay delos Santos, Armando Trillos,
Felicisimo Trillos, Arcangel Flores, Eddie Martin, Presilla Layog, Conrado Caguyong, Gina Gonzales, Arlene Pedrosa, Jocelyn
Abelino, Roque Villaraza, Rolando Villaraza, Camilo Genove, Nilda Roayana, Susan Roayana, Juancho Panganiban, Bong de
Guzman, Arnold Enverso, Donna dela Raza, Emelyn Hagnaya, Freddie de Leon, Ronillo de Leon, Mario Martinez, and Precy Lopez
Facts:
The petitioner owned Pillar Village Subdivision at Las Pias where the respondents allegedly built their shanties without the
petitioners 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 its 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, its 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.

Issues:
1. WON the land in question is part of public property- YES.
2. Who is the property party entitled to institute the case- the OSG or the LGU
Ratio:

Petitioner used Article 630 of the Civil Code as it provides the general rule that the owner of the estate retains the ownership of the
portion of the easement established, 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. 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 was issued for
biodiversity preservation, P.D. 1216 and P.D. 1067 or The Water Code of the Philippines all of which states 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.
With regard to the second issue, both the OSG and the local government of Las Pinas City, may file an action depending on the
purpose sought to be achieved. The former shall be responsible in case of action for reversion under C.A. 141, while the latter may
also bring an action to enforce the relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992).
Under RA No. 7279, all LGUs are mandated to evict and demolish persons or entities occupying dangerous areas including
riverbanks. It also obliges the LGUS to strictly observe resettlement procedures and prohibition against new illegal structures in
Sections 29 and 30 respectively. Else, there will be administrative and criminal liability.
The Court suggests that petitioner should file an action for mandamus to compel the local government of Las Pias City to enforce
with reasonable dispatch the eviction of respondents under R.A. 7279.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.