By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Protecting Your Property: Lessons from the Pitogo Island Case
This case concerns a land dispute concerning Pitogo Island in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, specifically involving Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973. Dante Padayao, representing the Heirs of Mario Padayao, asserted ownership over Lot No. 6973, which was covered by Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Bilang 35669 (KOT Blg. 35669). In January 2009, the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur, through Atty. Janis Ian Regaspi-Cleofe, directed the residents of Pitogo Island to vacate, claiming the area was a protected zone. Subsequently, in February 2009, structures on the island, including Dante’s property, were demolished by armed men associated with the Provincial Government. Dante filed a complaint with the RTC for recovery of possession and damages, seeking a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the respondents. The RTC initially ruled in favor of Dante, instructing the defendants to vacate and restore Pitogo Island to him. However, the CA modified this decision, stating that Dante was entitled to the restoration of possession only for Lot No. 6973. The CA reasoned that Dante could only rely on KOT Blg. 35669 for Lot No. 6973 and had not sufficiently demonstrated ownership of Lot No. 6972, leading to the presumption that Lot No. 6972 remained inalienable public land.
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision that Dante Padayao only had a superior right of possession concerning Lot No. 6973.
The Supreme Court granted Dante’s petition. It affirmed the CA’s decision with a modification, ordering the respondents to vacate, turnover, and restore possession of both Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973 to Dante. The Court held that Dante had demonstrated a better right of possession over both lots.
Several key legal doctrines were emphasized in the Supreme Court’s decision. Firstly, the action filed by Dante was identified as an accion publiciana, which is a plenary action to recover the better right of possession, typically initiated more than one year after dispossession. The Court reiterated that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the assessed value of the property. It was noted that a land classification map, such as Land Map 882, serves as reliable proof that a parcel of land has been classified as alienable and disposable. The Court underscored the significance of prior possession, stating that uncontested prior possession, supported by evidence like structures, survey plans, tax payments, and patent applications, establishes a better right of possession. Furthermore, assertions that land is a protected area must be substantiated with sufficient evidence from the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) or the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The Court also affirmed that a free patent is presumed valid and can only be challenged through a reversion suit initiated by the government.
The foregoing case highlights the following takeaways on land ownership and possession:
Know Your Rights: If someone takes your land, you have legal options to get it back.
Land Classification Matters: Understand if your land is alienable and disposable. Check records at the DENR and consult land classification maps.
Keep Proof of Possession: Maintain records that prove you possess the land, like tax declarations, survey plans, and permits.
Due Process is Essential: The government must follow the law if they want you off your land, especially if they claim it’s a protected area.
Get Legal Help: If you have land problems, talk to a lawyer to know your rights and what you can do.
(Reference: Padayao v. Villafuerte, Jr., G.R. No. 260415, (15 January 2025))