Department of Education v.

Casibang
GR No. 192268 || January 27, 2016
PERALTA, J.

CASE DOCTRINE (with reference to the topic in the syllabus)

Art. 448, taking into consideration the rights of landowners as against a builder in good faith, provides a just and equitable
solution to the impracticability of creating “forced co-ownership” by (1) giving the owner of the land the option to acquire
the improvements after payment of the proper indeminity or (2) to oblige the builder or planter to pay for the land and the
sower to pay the proper rent. (Bernardo v. Bataclan)

SUMMARY:
DepEd, who controls and supervises the Solana North Central School, filed a complaint against the respondents with the
MCTC, which the said court granted and ordered the respondents to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the respondents, in
their capacity as landowners, as shown by documentary evidence, demanded the petitioner to either pay rent, purchase
the area occupied by the latter or vacate the premises but DepEd refused to heed to their demand or to recognize their
ownership, asserting that they are the rightful owners of the property occupied by them. The respondents filed an action
for Recovery of Possession and/or Sum of Money against DepEd with the RTC, which the RTC granted. DepEd filed an
appeal with the CA but the CA only affirmed the RTC decision. DepEd then filed a petition with the Supreme Court on
certorari, contending that the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition and ordered
for the case to be remanded as it found the respondents to be the rightful owner and are thus entitled to just
compensation by virtue of Art. 448.

FACTS:
● The disputed property is registered under the name of Juan Cepeda, the respondents’ late father, whose name
also appears in the Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
○ In 1965, Mayor Caronan requested to Cepeda that the western portion of the latter’s property be used for
the construction and operation of a school now known as Solana North Central School, operating under
the control and supervision of petitioner DepEd.
● In 2001, DepEd filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry and Damages against respondents before the MCTC which
ruled in favor of the petitioner and directed respondents to vacate the premises.
○ The RTC affirmed this decision on appeal.
○ The respondents demanded the petitioner to either pay rent, purchase the area occupied, or vacate
the premises. DepEd refused to heed the demand and to recognize respondents’ ownership.
● In 2004, the respondents filed an action for Recovery of Possession and/or Sum of Money against DepEd,
averring that they have been deprived fof the use and the enjoyment of the portion of the land occupied by the
school, thus, they are entitled to just compensation and reasonable rent. (see arguments below)
○ The DepEd failed to present its evidence or witness so the RTC considered the case submitted for
decision and rendered a Decision, finding the respondents as the owners of the subject property.
○ The RTC ordered the reconveyance of the portion occupied by Solana North Central School but since the
restoration of possession is no longer feasible or convenient, the only relief available is for the
government to pay due compensation which should have been done years ago.
● The DepEd, through the OSG, appealed the case before the CA, insisting that respondents have lost their right over the
subject property for their failure to assert the same for more than 30 years.
○ The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
● Hence, this petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision of the CA.

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS (if applicable):

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 102, PROF. MIA GENTUGAYA

 ● DepEd alleged that it owned the subject property ● Their father only consented to the building of the
because it was purchased by civic-minded temporary structure and allowed the conduct of
residents of Solana, Cagayan from Cepeda. classes in the premises because he did not have
● Contrary to respondents’ claim that the occupation any immediate need of such at the time.
is by mere tolerance, the property has always ● The respondents presented the following pieces of
been occupied and used adversely, peacefully, evidence:
continuously, and in the concept of owner for ○ (1) OCT registered in the name of Juan
almost 40 years. Cepeda, (2) Tax Declarations and tax
● Whatever right the respondents had over the receipts in his name, (3) the Technical
property, they already lost through laches. Description by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Land
Management Services showing that it was
surveyed in the name of Cepeda, and; (4)
a certification from the MTC declaring said
lot was the subject of Cad Case No. N-13
which was adjudicated to Cepeda.

ISSUE(S), HOLDING, AND RATIO:

RULING RATIO

WON the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s ● As registered owners of the lots in question by virtue of the
decision that the respondents’ right to OCT, the respondents have a right to eject any person illegally
recoever the possession of the subject is not occupying their property and such right is imprescriptible. The
barred by prescription and/or laches? -- NO lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their
property at any time as long as the possession was
unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all. This right is never
barred by laches.
○ Case law: those who occupy the land of another at the
latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract
between them, are necessarily bound by an implied
promise that the occupants will vacate the property
upon demand.
● Tolentino mentioned that tolerated acts are acts of little
disturbances which a person, in the interest of neighborliness
or friendly relations, permits others to do on his property. The
permission of the owner arises from an “impulse of sense of
neighborliness or good familiarity with persons” or out of
“friendship or courtesy” and not out of duty or obligation.
○ Since DepEd has is bound by an implied promise,
respondents are not required to do any act to
recover the subject land, precisely because they
knew of the nature of DepEd’s possession which is by
mere tolerance.
● Art. 448, in relation to Art. 456, provides for the rights of
respondents as landowners as against the DepEd, a builder
in good faith since Cepeda permitted the construction of the
buidling and improvements to conduct classes on his property.
○ Art. 448 provides a just and equitable solution to the
impracticability of creating “forced co-ownership” by
(1) giving the owner of the land the option to acquire
the improvements after payment of the proper
indeminity or (2) to oblige the builder or planter to pay
for the land and the sower to pay the proper rent.

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 102, PROF. MIA GENTUGAYA

 (Bernardo v. Bataclan)
○ The owner of the land is allowed to exercise said
opetions because his right is older and because, by
the principle of accession, he is entitled to the
ownership of the accessory thing.
● Although two options as previously mentioned are available to
the respondents, under Art. 448, the builder cannot be obliged
to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the
improvements and buildings.
○ Furthermore, the respondents can no longer
appropriate after payment of the indemnity because it
is now being used as school premises, the only option
left with the second option is to oblige DepEd to pay
the price of the land or to require it to pay reasonable
rent If the value of the land is considerably more than
the value of the buildings and improvements.
● The case should be remanded for the determination of the
value of the subject property.
○ The RTC ruled that the basis of due compensation for
the respondents should be the price or value of the
property at the time the taking.
○ However, the Court in Ballatan v. CA settled that while
the time of the taking is determinative of just
compensation in expropriation proceedings, such
should not be the case where a landowner has been
deprived of the use of a portion of this land for
years due to encroachment of another.
○ In that case, Vda. De Roxas v. Our Lady’s
Foundation, Inc. is instructive where the Court stated
that the computation of the value should be fixed at
the prevailing market value and that the reckoning
period for valuing the property shall be at the time
the landowner elected his choice.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari, dated June 18, 2010, of petitioner Department of Education,
represented by its Regional Director, is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 29, 2010 of the Court of
Appeals in CA- G.R. CV No. 90633, af􏰀rming the Decision dated January 10, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 5, which declared the respondents the owners of property in controversy, is hereby
AFFIRMED.

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the court of origin to determine the value of the subject property. If the value of
the property is less than the value of the buildings and improvements, the Department of Education is ordered to pay such
amount. If the value of the property is greater than the value of the buildings and improvements, the DepEd is ordered to
pay reasonable rent in accordance with the agreement of the parties. In case of disagreement, the trial court shall 􏰀x the
amount of reasonable rent.

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 102, PROF. MIA GENTUGAYA