G.R. No. 185031 & 185091; August 8, 2010
Republic of the Philippines, Represented by the Department of Education Division of Lipa City (For Paninsingin Primary School), Petitioner, vs. Primo Mendoza and Maria Lucero, Respondents.

FACTS

Paninsingin Primary School (PPS), a public school, has occupied a 1,149-square-meter land in Lipa City since 1957. The property, however, remained registered under Transfer Certificate of Title T-11410 in the names of respondents Primo and Maria Mendoza. In 1962, the Mendozas consolidated and subdivided their lots, with a subdivision plan designating Lot 4 for the City Government of Lipa. Despite this, no new title was ever issued to the city government for Lot 4, and the original title in the Mendozas’ name was only partially cancelled. PPS remained in possession, with the Republic claiming the Mendozas had relinquished the lot, as evidenced by tax declarations in the city government’s name and permanent school improvements.
In 1999, after PPS refused a demand to vacate, the Mendozas filed an unlawful detainer case. The Municipal Trial Court initially dismissed based on state immunity, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) later ordered PPS to vacate, upholding the Mendozas’ superior right as registered owners. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling the Mendozas’ registered title was indefeasible and imprescriptible, and the government’s possession was merely tolerated.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Mendozas were entitled to evict the Republic from the property used for a public school.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Mendozas cannot evict the government through an ejectment suit but are entitled to just compensation. The Court affirmed the imprescriptibility of a Torrens title, recognizing the Mendozas’ undisputed ownership as registered holders. The government’s long-term possession and the subdivision plan designating the lot for the city did not transfer ownership, as no title was ever issued to the government. Tax declarations in the city’s name cannot overcome a certificate of title.
However, the government cannot be summarily ejected. Applying the doctrine from Republic v. Heirs of Dimalanta, when the government occupies private property for public use without initiating formal expropriation, the owner’s remedy is not an action for recovery of possession but an action for just compensation. Ejectment would disrupt public service, as the property has been used as a school for decades. Thus, the Mendozas’ ejectment suit must be dismissed without prejudice to filing a separate action to compel the government to institute expropriation proceedings and pay just compensation. The government’s occupation constitutes a taking in the public interest, obligating it to compensate the owners.