Court junks Capitol’s suit vs OPRRA lots occupants

CEBU, Philippines — For the affected residents of the Old Philippine Railway Residents Association (OPPRA) Incorporated, Christmas came early after Branch 11 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities’ (MTCC)-7 dismissed the case filed by the Cebu Provincial Government against them.

Represented by Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia, Cebu Province filed a civil case for unlawful detainer against Nemeciano Capute and close to 60 other individuals over Capitol-owned lots in OPPRA, Brgy. Kalunasan, Cebu City that they were living in.

In his Dec. 4, 2024 ruling posted at “OPPRA, INC’s” Facebook page,  Judge Vivien Leigh Santiago-Lumangtad said that while Cebu Province owned the subject lots, ownership “does not grant the owner an unbridled authority to wrest possession from the lawful occupant”.

“To recover possession, the owner must avail of the proper judicial remedy and satisfy all the conditions necessary for the chosen action to prosper,” the court said.                                                  

Unlawful detainer as a legal action means a case filed so an owner could take back actual possession of his property from unlawful occupants.

The disputed lots in Kalunasan served as relocation site for dislocated residents of the lots occupied by the old Philippine railway, a train system destroyed in the war, hence the name OPRRA.

 It was noted in the decision that Cebu Province tolerated the residents’ occupation over the concerned property for several years and “has allowed them and/or their predecessors and heirs, as well as other residents of the subject lots to occupy them temporarily”.

On April 16, 2012, the Cebu Sanggunian Panlalawigan, in Resolution No. 593-2012, terminated the relocation agreement for the “undisputable failure of most of the residents/occupants to comply with the conditions, pay and settle their obligations”.

Then for another eight years after the supposed termination of the agreement, the Capitol once again tolerated the occupation of these residents for goodwill until it decided to take back the possession of the property for the benefit of its constituents.

It also said that “in an action for unlawful detainer, the complainant has to prove through preponderance of evidence that he/she consented to the possession of the property through positive acts with supporting evidence on record that would show how and when the respondents entered the property, and who granted them permission to enter to which the Capitol failed to do so”.

“There was no allegation in the Complaint, much less proof, as to how and when defendants initially entered the subject properties. There was no showing as to who allowed defendants to physically possess the subject lots. The Complaint merely states, ''the property has been the subject of discussion as far back June 7, 1971, when the Plaintiff and the Old Philippine Railway Residents Association, Inc. (OPPRA) signed a Sales Agreement," it added.

“As such comes the possibility that defendants or their predecessors-in¬ interest were trespassers and occupied the subject lots by illegal means.This makes the case outside of the scope for a case of unlawful detainer accordingly,” it further said.

On Cebu Province’s argument that it merely tolerated the residents’ use of the lots, the court said that it “should have preceded defendants' entry to the property, it should be present right from the start of possession sought to be recovered, to categorize a cause of action as one of unlawful detainer not of forcible entry”.

 “It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the acts of tolerance, for a bare allegation of tolerance will not suffice,” the court said.

 “The plaintiffs' supposed acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the possession. Otherwise, if the possession was already unlawful at the outset, it would constitute an action for forcible entry, and the filing of one for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy,” it also said.

The court likewise said that although the Cebu Provincial Government presented the titles of the lots under its name, these do not constitute proof of tolerance or permission.

  “As registered owner of the property, it does not give them the authority to remove defendants from the property accordingly and that ejectment cases are not automatically decided in favor of the party who presents proof of ownership,” it said.

 The court reminded that its ruling “should not in any way be misconstrued as coddling the occupant of the property, at the expense of the lawful owner” but to impress upon the provincial government that “even the legal owner of the property cannot conveniently usurp possession against a possessor, through a summary action for ejectment, without proving the essential requisites  thereof”.

It said that without proof that the occupation of the residents of the lot has Cebu Province’s permission or tolerance at the very start, the Capitol could pursue other remedies aside from alleging unlawful detainer.

 “The decision of the court does not mean that plaintiff is without any recourse.... The court's ruling is limited only on the issue of possession,” the court said.

Sought for comment, Garcia told The Freeman that she would only comment after she gets the full details of the decision. (CEBU NEWS)