“towns/pueblos/churches/public plaza are property for public use and not subject for appropriation by the State and private persons”
Facts:
Petitioners claim ownership on Lots 138-A, 138-B, and 138-C contending that said lots were adjacent to the land area occupied by the church. Respondent however claims ownership on Lots 138-A and 138-C as the Lot 138-B is indisputably owned by the Church with its open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession thereof. The lots in dispute have constructions of a public plaza, municipal building, rural health center, community medicare hospital, basketball court, Rizal monument and a grandstand. Petitioner contends that such constructions and buildings were merely allowed by them in occupation by tolerance and does not constitute possession of the respondents.
Issues:
Whether or not the land in dispute belongs to a public domain based on its nature of use?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that public plaza and public thoroughfares is not subject for registration by either the church or the municipality. Property for public use of provinces and towns are governed by the same principles as property of public dominion of the same character. They are intended for the common and public welfare so they cannot be subject for appropriation either by the State or private person.
No comments:
Post a Comment