G.R. No. 230399 - DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, (NOW DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, TERESITA DOMALANTA, VS. HEIRS OF REGINO BANGUILAN, NAMELY: BENIGNA GUMABAY, FILOMENA BANGUILAN, ESTER KUMMER, AIDA BANGUILAN, AND ELISA MALLILLIN.D E C I S I O N - Supr

Ruling

Accordingly, the respondents prayed for the following: (1) to declare the school's possession of the property illegal or unlawful; (2) to order DepEd, its assigns and those acting in its behalf, to vacate the property presently occupied by CNES and to surrender peaceful possession thereof to the respondents; (3) to demand from DepEd for payment of reasonable rent for the use of the property at a rate of P500.00 per month since 1950, litigation expense of P30,000.00 and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. [7] In its Answer, [8] the petitioner admitted that sometime before the war, it had established CNES on land located in Caritan Norte, Tuguegarao City and constructed school buildings on the said school site. However, it denied respondents' claim of ownership and demands for payment of reasonable rent since the school's occupation and possession over the property was in the concept of an owner for more than fifty (50) years until 2001. [9] Furthermore, the petitioner contended that respondents' complaint did not state a cause of action since there was no proof that the lot being claimed by the latter formed part of the school site of CNES. Even assuming but without admitting that there was a cause of action, the petitioner argues that the same had already been barred by prescription and/or laches because they had been occupying and using the subject lot adversely, peacefully, continuously, and in the concept of an owner for more than fifty (50) years without question. [10] In a Decision [11] dated September 11, 2012, the trial court declared Regino as the undisputed owner of the contested property where CNES was built as evidenced by OCT No. 10728. However, despite recognition of ownership, the trial court was convinced that laches and prescription had already set in, barring respondents from assailing the petitioner's right over subject property. The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court ORDERS the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit without prejudice to their filing of an action for payment of just compensation against the Republic of the Philippines. SO ORDERED.