oflodoR-Rodolfo

Sps. Gulla v. Heirs of A. Labrador

G.R. No. 149418, July 27, 2006

Facts:

Angel Labrador, Leonardo Labrador, Fe Labrador Gamboa, Alex Labrador and Roger Labrador filed a complaint against the spouses Pelagio and Perlita Gulla in the RTC for “Cancellation of Tax Declaration and Recovery of Possession with Damages” (accion publiciana). The complaint involved a 22,590-square-meter lot and the 562-square-meter lot abutting the titled property.

According to the Labradors, the property was declared for taxation purposes under their names and the corresponding taxes were paid thereon. In 1996, the spouses Gulla occupied a portion of the property fronting the China Sea, as well as the 562-square-meter lot within the salvage area. The spouses Gulla then constructed a house in the occupied property and fenced its perimeter. The Labradors pointed out that whatever alleged claims the spouses Gulla had on the property was acquired through a Deed of Waiver of Rights dated July 23, 1996 executed in their favor by another “squatter” Alfonso Bactad. To verify the exact location of the portion occupied by the spouses Gulla, a verification survey of the land was conducted on August 17, 1990 in the presence of Pelagio Gulla.

For their part, the spouses Gulla claimed that they had been in possession of the 2,888-square-meter property, since 1984 and declared the property for taxation purposes under their names. On October 8, 1994, they filed an application for miscellaneous sales patent which was certified as alienable and disposable land by the barangay captain.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the possession of Lot A which is located at the foreshore of San Felipe, Zambales as indicated in the report of Engr. Magarro.

Held:

The trial court, the RTC and the CA were one in ruling that the 562-square-meter property, Lot A, is part of the public domain, hence, beyond the commerce of men and not capable of registration. In fact, the land is within the salvage zone fronting the China Sea as well as the property in the name of respondents. The provision relied upon is Article 440 of the New Civil Code, which states that “[t]he ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.” The provision, however, does not apply in this case, considering that Lot A is a foreshore land adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the tides. Such property belongs to the public domain and is not available for private ownership until formally declared by the government to be no longer needed for public use. Respondents thus have no possessory right over the property unless upon application, the government, through the then Bureau of Lands, had granted them a permit.

There is no question that no such permit was issued or granted in favor of respondents. This being the case, respondents have no cause of action to cause petitioners’ eviction from the subject property. The real party-in-interest to file a complaint against petitioners for recovery of possession of the subject property and cause petitioner’s eviction therefrom is the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General. Consequently, petitioners cannot be required to pay any rentals to respondents for their possession of the property.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Related posts:

1. Property Case Digest | Sps. Santos v. Sps. Lumbao
2. Property Case Digest | Foster-Gallego v. Sps. Galang
3. Property Case Digest | Bank of Commerce v. Sps. Prudencio San Pablo
4. Property Case Digest | Heirs of Wenceslao Tabia v. Court of Appeals
5. Property Case Digest | Lao v. Heirs of Alburo
6. Property Case Digest | Sps. Pingol v. Court of Appeals
7. Property Case Digest | Florencio Balatero and Heirs of Josefa Badelles v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Juan Veloso
8. Property Case Digest | Heirs of Marciano Nagano v. Court of Appeals
9. Property Case Digest | Engreso v. De la Cruz
10. Property Case Digest | Case v. Heirs of Tuason