G.R. No. 241507 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [DEPED]-REGION II, VS. HEIRS OF ERIBERTO ONTIVEROS AND SPOUSES GERARDO AND DAISY ONTIVEROS.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing ratiocination, the contested decision of the 8 th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 2, Aparri-Calayan, Cagayan dated March 30, 2016 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The defendant-appellee is hereby ordered to vacate the subject property and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiffs-appellants. SO DECIDED. [22] The Regional Trial Court held that the Ontiveroses proved ownership and a better right of possession of the land through the Department of Education's judicial admission and various evidence, such as the relocation survey report, as well as tax receipts and declarations issued in their name. [23] It found that the Department of Education failed to prove its rightful possession, and the arguments of prescription and laches had no legal basis. [24] In a February 15, 2018 Decision, [25] the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling. [26] It held that the Ontiveroses had a superior possessory right over the land, having sufficiently proven their ownership, and the Department of Education even judicially admitted the existence of TCT No. T-56997 and the Ontiveroses' ownership of the property. [27] It ruled that the Department of Education failed to show any documentary or testimonial evidence that it was entitled to the property. [28] In an August 8, 2018 Resolution, [29] the Court of Appeals denied the Department of Education's Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the regional director of the Department of Education, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari [30] before this Court. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred on a question of law in ruling against it. [31] It claims that respondents' claim of ownership over the land has no legal basis as they failed to present the original or certified true copy of TCT No. T-56977, and the tax declarations and receipts they presented are not conclusive proofs of ownership. [32] It denies having admitted respondents' ownership; on the contrary, it claims that respondents had admitted its possession as early as the 1970s. [33] Even assuming that respondents own the property, petitioner argues that prescription has barred respondents' Complaint. It alleges that the school has been occupying the property since the 1970s, and its occupation was open, peaceful, adverse, continuous, and in the concept of an owner. [34] It adds that respondents are guilty of estoppel by laches, since they did not assert their right or protest against the adverse possession for over 37 years. [35] Should this Court find that respondents are not barred by prescription or estoppel by laches, petitioner says that it should be allowed to continue occupying the lot as its school site or buy the property under Article 448, in relation to Article 546, of the Civil Code. [36] Finally, it claims entitlement to damages. [37] In their Comment, [38] respondents allege that they have a better right to possess the la