DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS INCUMBENT PRESIDENT, GREG SERIEGO, PETITIONER, VS. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

Dream Village Neighborhood Association versus Bases Conversion Development Authority

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Incorporated, represented by its president Greg Seriego, against the Bases Conversion Development Authority, which we shall call the BCDA. Dream Village claims to represent more than two thousand families who have occupied a seventy eight thousand four hundred sixty six square meter lot in Western Bicutan, Taguig City since 1985, and it asked the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, the COSLAP, to declare that lot alienable and disposable and outside the BCDA's titled territory. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between administrative adjudication and the Torrens system, and because it tells us when land held by the State may, and may not, be acquired by long possession.

Procedural History

Dream Village first wrote a letter complaint to the COSLAP in November 1999, and formalized it in an amended petition the following year. The BCDA answered and challenged the COSLAP's jurisdiction. The COSLAP ruled in favor of Dream Village, declaring the property outside the BCDA's survey claim and directing the Land Management Bureau to process the members' sales patent applications. The BCDA moved for reconsideration, which the COSLAP denied.

The BCDA then went up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated September 10, 2009, nullified the COSLAP resolution for lack of jurisdiction, and it denied Dream Village's motion for reconsideration in July 2010. Dream Village then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

The disputed land was once part of the Hacienda de Maricaban, registered under a Torrens title issued in 1906. The United States government acquired the estate and converted it into the military reservation of Fort William Mckinley, later renamed Fort Bonifacio. Title passed from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines in 1956, and in 1957 President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 423, withdrawing the tracts within Fort Bonifacio from sale or settlement and reserving them for military purposes.

In 1986, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476, declaring certain portions of Fort Bonifacio alienable and disposable so that home lots in Upper Bicutan, Lower Bicutan, Signal Village, and Western Bicutan could be sold to settlers. In 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 172, which limited the areas open for disposition in Western Bicutan to Lots 1 and 2 of the survey plan for that barangay.

In 1992, Congress passed Republic Act No. 7227, creating the BCDA to convert military reservations to productive civilian uses, and authorizing the sale of lands, including seven hundred twenty three hectares of Fort Bonifacio, to raise the BCDA's capital. Titles over the camps were transferred to the BCDA, and in 1995 the Republic's title was cancelled and replaced by titles in the BCDA's name. Dream Village's members, meanwhile, occupied a lot they claimed lay within Lot 1 of the Western Bicutan survey and thus within Proclamation No. 172. A verification survey later reported that they actually occupied Lots 10, 11, and a portion of Lot 13 of a different survey, the abandoned right of way of Circumferential Road 5.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the COSLAP had no jurisdiction over the controversy between Dream Village and the BCDA.
• Whether or not the area occupied by Dream Village lies within the lands declared alienable and disposable under Proclamation Nos. 2476 and 172.
• Whether or not Dream Village's long occupation could ripen into ownership by prescription against the BCDA's registered title.

Applicable Provisions

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; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

This classification decides whether the land can be acquired by prescription at all.

Article 421 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.

Only patrimonial property of the State may be the object of prescription.

Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1113. Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.

This is the rule that defeats Dream Village's claim of acquisitive prescription.

Section 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree, provides:

Sec. 47. No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

This protects the BCDA's Torrens titles from being lost through long occupation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the COSLAP had no jurisdiction. The land had been under a private Torrens title since 1906 and is now titled in the name of a government agency, the BCDA, so the question of whether Dream Village falls within the areas opened by Proclamation No. 172 is beyond the COSLAP's competence. The Court distinguished the earlier case of Bañaga, where the disputed land was part of the public domain and the parties were applicants for sales patent.

On the second issue, the Court held that Dream Village does not sit on land declared alienable and disposable. The verification survey placed the community on Lots 10, 11, and part of 13 of a survey outside the Western Bicutan plan, on the abandoned alignment of Circumferential Road 5. The Court stressed that the abandonment of a road alignment does not make the bypassed lots alienable, and that they remain under the BCDA's title.

On the third issue, the Court held that prescription had not even begun to run. Although Republic Act No. 7227 made the military lands alienable and disposable, they did not thereby become patrimonial, because the law reserves them for sale to fund the conversion of the former American bases. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

For as long as the property belongs to the State, although already classified as alienable or disposable, it remains property of the public dominion if when it is “intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.”

Since the land remains property of public dominion, Article 1113 of the Civil Code bars prescription, and Section 47 of the Property Registration Decree bars any title by adverse possession against registered land.

Doctrine

First, the COSLAP is a coordinating agency of limited jurisdiction; it cannot adjudicate a dispute over land already covered by a Torrens title held by a government agency.

Second, land classified as alienable and disposable does not automatically become patrimonial. Under Articles 420 and 421 of the Civil Code, it remains property of public dominion while reserved for public service or the development of national wealth, and only its sale to a private person converts it to private property.

Third, under Article 1113 of the Civil Code and Section 47 of the Property Registration Decree, land of the public dominion and land under a Torrens title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals, so the BCDA prevailed and the COSLAP resolution was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: alienable and disposable is not the same as patrimonial, and only patrimonial land of the State can be acquired by prescription. Examiners use this case to test the public dominion classification under Articles 420 and 421, and the COSLAP's limited jurisdiction over titled land.