Department of Education vs. Caleda (G.R. No. 272507)(2025) (CASE DIGEST)

(Note: in re: Land Titles and Deeds)

Facts

Princess Joama Marcosa A. Caleda (Caleda) is the registered owner of Lot No. 7421, a 10,637-square meter parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4975. Caleda acquired the lot on November 21, 2014, through an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights and Sale executed by the heirs of Bueno Gallebo.

Upon visiting the lot for a relocation survey, Caleda found it occupied by the Solano Fresh Water Fishery School (SFWFS), which is under the direct supervision of the Department of Education (DepEd). Caleda sent several demand letters for DepEd/SFWFS to vacate Lot No. 7421 but her request was not heeded.

DepEd claimed SFWFS owned the lot in fee simple, based on a July 7, 1965 Deed of Sale from Bueno Gallebo. However, the lower courts found that the 1965 Deed of Sale only covered Lot No. 7420, not the contested Lot No. 7421, which remained unsold until Caleda purchased it in 2014. Caleda filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Damages on March 11, 2016.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower courts’ ruling ordering the Department of Education (DepEd) to vacate Lot No. 7421 and turn over its possession to Princess Joama Marcosa A. Caleda.
2. Whether the principles prohibiting the ejection of a public institution from property already devoted to public use apply when the owner promptly contests the occupation and has a better right of possession.

Ruling

“ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The September 27, 2023 Decision and March 6, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 172008 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Department of Education, as represented by Region II OIC-Regional Director Dr. Estela Cariño, is ordered to VACATE Lot No. 7421 described under Original Certificate of Title No. P-4975 and to turn over its possession to respondent Princess Joama Marcosa A. Caleda.”.

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

1. Recovery of Possession (Ejection of Public Institution): A public institution endowed with the power of eminent domain may not be ejected from property devoted to public use, even without a title, if the owner exhibits an express or implied acquiescence, usually in the form of a long delay in asserting rights. Conversely, a public institution may be ordered to vacate if the owner did not consent to the occupation and is shown to have a better right of possession.
2. Laches and Registered Lands: The doctrine of laches, defined as the failure or neglect to assert a right within a reasonable time, is not applicable to registered land covered by the Torrens System.
3. Prompt Assertion of Rights: When a private landowner acts promptly to assert rights over occupied property—such as sending demand letters and filing a complaint within a short span of years (less than two years in this case)—there is no display of “unreasonable or unexplained delay” constituting laches or implied acquiescence.
4. Inverse Condemnation/Remedy Limit: While an aggrieved party whose property is taken for public use without formal expropriation proceedings is generally limited to seeking just compensation and not recovery of possession, this limitation applies mainly where the government is a public utility corporation (which DepEd is not) and where the property owner has displayed concomitant neglect or waived the right to ejectment by acquiescing to the use. When the owner has not acquiesced and the occupying entity failed to file an expropriation case, the remedy of recovery of possession remains viable.

Sample Q&A

Question: The Department of Education (DepEd) occupied Lot 7421 for its school campus, SFWFS, without initiating formal expropriation proceedings, relying on a decades-old Deed of Sale that mistakenly covered an adjacent lot (Lot 7420). Caleda, the new registered owner under a Torrens Title (OCT No. P-4975), discovered the occupation in 2014 and filed an accion publiciana in 2016 after issuing multiple demands to vacate. DepEd argues that since the land is now devoted to public use, Caleda’s sole remedy is just compensation, citing the doctrine that a public institution cannot be ejected from property already devoted to public use. Is DepEd correct?

Answer: No, DepEd is incorrect. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence confirms that while a public institution generally cannot be ejected from property devoted to public use, this protection applies only if there is an express or implied acquiescence by the owner in the delay of asserting their rights. Here, Caleda promptly asserted her ownership rights by sending demand letters and filing a Complaint for Recovery of Possession within two years of learning about the adverse claim, demonstrating a lack of acquiescence. Furthermore, the doctrine of laches is not applicable to registered lands covered by the Torrens System. Since Caleda proved her better right of possession based on her registered title and DepEd failed to institute a formal expropriation case, the government entity cannot defeat Caleda’s claim for recovery of possession by relying on the defense of public use. Caleda is thus entitled to the recovery of possession (a remedy available in cases like accion publiciana).

---

#RecoveryOfPossession
#EjectmentCase
#LandTitlesAndDeeds
#TorrensSystem
#DepEdvsCaleda
#GR272507
#RegisteredLand
#RightOfPossession
#WritOfPossession
#InverseCondemnation
#NoLachesOnRegisteredLand
#PhilippineJurisprudence
#SupremeCourtPH
#PhilippineLaw
#LegalDoctrine
#PropertyLaw
#CivilLaw
#CaseDigest
#PublicInternationalLaw
#EminentDomain
#LegalResearch
#LawPH
#LegalNews
#StudyLaw
#AttyLife
#FutureLawyer
#LawStudent
#LegalCommunity
#PHJustice
#LegalUpdate
#MustReadCases
#KnowYourRights