NIMFA USERO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPS. HERMINIGILDO & CECILIA POLINAR, RESPONDENTS.

Usero versus Court of Appeals and Spouses Polinar

The Case

This is a consolidated petition for review on certiorari brought by Nimfa Usero and Lutgarda Samela against the Court of Appeals and the spouses Herminigildo and Cecilia Polinar. The petitioners are the registered owners of two residential lots in Golden Acres Subdivision, Las Piñas City. The spouses Polinar own a lot in Pilar Village, situated behind the petitioners' lots. Between the properties lies a low strip of land that the petitioners claim as their own, but which the spouses Polinar insist is a creek. The petitioners filed separate complaints for forcible entry after the spouses Polinar built a concrete wall and rip-rapped the bank of the strip of land. The case matters because it tests the boundary between private registered land and property of public dominion, and it reminds every reviewee that a creek is public water that cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed separate complaints for forcible entry before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas City. The case of petitioner Samela was docketed as Civil Case No. 5242, and that of petitioner Usero as Civil Case No. 5243. On March 22, 1999, the trial court decided Civil Case No. 5242 in favor of petitioner Samela, ordering the spouses Polinar to vacate and remove the improvements at their expense, to pay reasonable compensation, and to pay attorney's fees and costs. In Civil Case No. 5243, the trial court issued an order directing the parties to commission a geodetic engineer to conduct a relocation survey. The survey reported that there was no existing creek on the boundary and that the spouses Polinar had encroached on an area of forty three square meters. On August 25, 2000, the trial court decided Civil Case No. 5243 in favor of petitioner Usero, with the same reliefs.

The spouses Polinar appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas, Branch 253, which heard the appeals separately. On December 20, 2000, the Regional Trial Court reversed the decision in Civil Case No. 5242 and dismissed the complaint, finding that a creek existed between the properties and that the portion formed part of public dominion. On March 16, 2001, the Regional Trial Court likewise reversed the decision in Civil Case No. 5243 and dismissed the complaint. The petitioners then filed separate petitions for review with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP 64181 for petitioner Samela and CA-G.R. SP 64718 for petitioner Usero. Both petitions failed. The petitioners then brought the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Facts

Petitioners Lutgarda Samela and Nimfa Usero owned lots 1 and 2 of Block 5, Golden Acres Subdivision, Barrio Almanza, Las Piñas City. The private respondent spouses Polinar owned a parcel of land at number 18 Anahaw Street, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City, located behind the lots of the petitioners. Between the lots of the parties lay a low-level strip of land with a stagnant body of water filled with floating water lilies. Abutting and perpendicular to the lot of petitioner Samela, the lot of the spouses Polinar, and the low-level strip was the perimeter wall of Pilar Village Subdivision.

Every time a storm or heavy rains occurred, the water in the strip of land rose, and the strong current passing through it caused considerable damage to the house of the spouses Polinar. Frustrated by their predicament, the spouses Polinar, on July 30, 1998, erected a concrete wall on the bank of the low-level strip of land about three meters from their house and rip-rapped the soil on that portion. Claiming ownership of the strip, the petitioners demanded that the spouses Polinar stop the construction, but the spouses paid no heed, believing the strip to be part of a creek. For the sake of peace, the spouses Polinar offered to pay for the land being claimed, but the parties failed to settle their differences.

On November 9, 1998, the petitioners filed separate complaints for forcible entry. Petitioner Samela presented her Transfer Certificate of Title, plan of consolidation, subdivision survey, tax declaration, and affidavits. The spouses Polinar presented their own title, a barangay certification as to the existence of the creek, a certification from the district engineer that the western portion of Pilar Village is bound by a tributary of Talon Creek, boundary and index maps showing that the village is surrounded by a creek, and pictures of the strip of land filled with water lilies. In the Usero case, a relocation survey was conducted, and the geodetic engineer reported that there was no existing creek on the boundary and that the spouses Polinar had encroached on an area of forty three square meters.

Issues

• Whether or not the disputed strip of land allegedly encroached upon by the spouses Polinar is the private property of the petitioners or part of a creek and therefore part of the public domain.
• Whether or not the Court may review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Whether or not the spouses Polinar may maintain the improvements they introduced on the rip-rapped portion of the creek.

Applicable Provisions

Article 419 of the Civil Code provides:

Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.

This provision frames the entire inquiry, because the strip of land must fall into one of these two classes, and if it is a creek it belongs to the State and not to any private owner.

Article 420 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;

The Court uses the phrase "others of similar character" to bring a creek within the class of property of public dominion, which is not susceptible to private ownership.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the disputed strip of land is a creek and therefore part of the public domain. The Court found that the assailed decisions were founded on sufficient evidence. That the strip is a creek was shown by a barangay certification that a creek exists in the disputed strip, a certification from the Second Manila Engineering District of the Department of Public Works and Highways that the western portion of Pilar Village is bounded by a tributary of Talon Creek, and photographs showing the abundance of water lilies. The Court reasoned that the fact that water lilies thrive in that strip can only mean that there is a permanent stream of water or creek there. In contrast, the petitioners failed to present sufficient proof. Their Transfer Certificates of Title had incomplete boundary descriptions, with no boundary described on the northwest portion of petitioner Samela's property and no boundary described on the southeast portion of the spouses Polinar's title, and the tax declaration had no entry on the west boundary. The Court concluded that the adjoining portion is in fact a creek and belongs to no one but the State.

On the second issue, the Court held that its jurisdiction in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. The Court found that this was not the case, so the factual findings of the Court of Appeals stood.

On the third issue, the Court held that the spouses Polinar may utilize the rip-rapped portion of the creek to prevent the erosion of their property. Since the creek is public water, it cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual, and the petitioners cannot claim it as their own.

Doctrine

A creek is property of public dominion under Article 420 of the Civil Code, falling within the phrase "others of similar character," because it is a recess or an arm of a river. Being public water, a creek is not susceptible to private ownership and cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual. A Torrens title does not confer ownership over property of public dominion, and incomplete boundary descriptions in a certificate of title cannot overcome evidence that the adjoining strip is a creek. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings are devoid of support by the evidence or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.

Disposition

The consolidated petitions were denied, and the assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed in toto. The spouses Polinar prevailed.

Remember This

A creek is property of public dominion that cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual. Examiners use this case to test the classification of property under Article 419 and Article 420 of the Civil Code, and the rule that Rule 45 review is limited to errors of law.