RAYMUND M. MANZANO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. CESAR LAPID, IN HIS CAPACITY AS BARANGAY CAPTAIN, LETICIA LAYUG, AURELIA GANZON, CORAZON DALISAY, JOSEPHINE DANTES, ZENAIDA ORDINARI…

Manzano versus Lapid

The Case

This is a lecture on Manzano versus Lapid, a decision of the Supreme Court through Justice Bersamin. The plaintiff, Raymund Manzano, sued the barangay captain and several barangay officials of Quezon Hill in Baguio City to stop them from entering a parcel of land he claimed and from introducing improvements on it, and to recover damages. The case matters because it gathers in one place the rules every examinee must know on public land: that possession of a lot inside the Baguio Townsite Reservation, however long, cannot ripen into ownership, and that injunction will not issue to protect a right that is not clear and unquestioned.

Procedural History

Manzano filed his complaint for injunction and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61, in July 1996. The trial court initially granted a writ of preliminary injunction in his favor, and it twice denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. The defendants later failed to file an answer, were declared in default, and the plaintiff presented his evidence ex parte. On April 10, 2002, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction. Manzano moved for reconsideration, which was denied on September 18, 2002. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court.

Facts

Bonifacio Manzano, the plaintiff's father, owned a registered lot in Quezon Hill, Baguio City, covered by a townsite sales patent issued in 1961 and by an original certificate of title issued in 1972. Beside that registered lot lay an unregistered parcel of about 1,015 square meters, on which the father built residential improvements. In 1977, the parents conveyed that unregistered lot and its improvements to their sons, Nicanor and the plaintiff Raymund. In February 1996, Nicanor waived his rights over half of the lot in favor of Raymund.

Raymund then filed a townsite sales application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources over his half of the unregistered lot. The application was returned unrecorded or denied, because there were existing applications on the land and because the land had been segregated and identified by the City Land Needs Identification Committee for the use of Quezon Hill Barangay.

In June 1996, the barangay, led by its captain Cesar Lapid, began excavating the lot in preparation for construction. Raymund sued, claiming that he and his family had occupied the land openly and continuously in the concept of an owner since 1959, and that the barangay officials acted in bad faith in moving to take the lot without informing him. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that his townsite sales application had been denied, that he had shown no legal title, and that his possession could not ripen into ownership because Baguio City is a townsite reservation.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff had no legal right or title to the property because it is public land, and that his possession could not ripen into ownership.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the plaintiff having sought only recognition of his possession and not the issuance of a certificate of title.
• Whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to the writ of injunction to protect his possession against the barangay officials.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1117 of the Civil Code, invoked by the plaintiff, provides:

Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be ordinary or extraordinary.

This is the mode of acquiring ownership by lapse of time on which the plaintiff rested his claim of ownership.

Article 1137 of the Civil Code provides:

Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.

This is the extraordinary period of thirty years that the plaintiff counted from 1959.

Article 539 of the Civil Code provides:

Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court.

This is the right of a lawful possessor that the plaintiff invoked against the barangay officials.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court. The plaintiff's lot corresponded to Lot No. 232, which, though adjacent to his father's registered Lot No. 233, remained part of the public land within the Baguio Townsite Reservation. His filing of a townsite sales application did not entitle him to possession to the exclusion of all others, and the application was in fact returned unrecorded or denied. The Court adopted the trial court's reasoning that possession since 1959 could not ripen into ownership because Baguio City is a townsite reservation, and that to obtain title the plaintiff had to apply for a townsite sales application, continuous occupation being only one of many requirements.

On the second issue, the Court found no reversible error. The plaintiff's own evidence showed that his claim rested on a townsite sales application that had been denied, and the trial court's dismissal did not turn on any exercise of land registration jurisdiction.

On the third issue, the Court held that injunction was not proper. Injunction is a preventive measure that depends on the applicant showing a positive legal right over the property, and the plaintiff showed no legal title. The Court added that had his possession been forcibly disturbed or usurped, his proper recourse was a prompt summary action under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, and he was not so dispossessed.

Doctrine

First, lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation are public domain and are not registerable under the old land registration law; possession of such a lot, however long and however open, cannot ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription under Articles 1117 and 1137 of the Civil Code. Second, the only manner by which one may acquire title to such a lot is by a townsite sales application, and continuous occupation is merely one of the requirements. Third, a townsite sales application that is returned unrecorded or denied resolves the question of the applicant's right of possession against him. Fourth, injunction will not issue where the complainant's right or title is not clear and unquestioned. Fifth, a possessor forcibly deprived of possession must resort to a summary action under Rule 70, not to injunction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, dismissing the complaint and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction; the barangay officials prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: possession of a lot in the Baguio Townsite Reservation, however long, cannot ripen into ownership, for title may be acquired only through a townsite sales application. Examiners use this case to test prescription against public land and the requirement of a clear legal right before injunction may issue.