05/09/2025
A very INFORMATIVE Post!
Thanks Batas PH!
| The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that the local government unit cannot automatically claim ownership of open spaces and road lots in subdivisions without written donation, as the property remains private.
In a 20-page ruling authored by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC’s Second Division ruled that the Quezon City (QC) LGU failed to establish that the open spaces and road lots in Capital Park Homes Subdivision (CPHS) had been donated to the city for public use, citing its failure to show a copy of any deed of donation as well as any proof of acceptance of such donation.
The case stemmed from a petition filed by Rainier Madrid, a QC local resident and taxpayer, who questioned the use of public funds to improve what he argued was private property.
Madrid contended that VV Soliven, CPHS’ developer, failed to present proof that the properties had been donated to the QC LGU. He stressed that without proof of donation, the properties remain private and cannot be treated as public property.
The Quezon City LGU countered the petition by citing its 1964 ordinance, which provides that developers are required to dedicate 6% of open spaces to the city for public use before a subdivision plan can be approved. The city argued that CPHS’s plan approval in 1969 was proof of compliance, which made it a donation.
Meanwhile, the homeowners association admitted the absence of a deed of donation but cited a board resolution stating that the properties were donated to the QC LGU.
Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition due to lack of cause of action, emphasizing that Madrid is not even a real party-in-interest.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the lower court ruling and recognized Madrid’s right to file the case since he could be affected by the alleged misuse of public funds.
The Appellate Court stressed that the areas in question remain private property, as there was no proof that the subdivision developer had donated them to the QC LGU. This prompted the city government to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.
In affirming the CA’s ruling, the high court emphasized that the QC LGU must prove a valid transfer of property in its favor.It held that since the LGU did not provide a deed of donation or any proof of acceptance, as required under the Civil Code, it failed to prove that the subject properties were donated.
The SC agreed with the CA ruling, saying the LGUs cannot rely solely on ordinances or laws to claim ownership. It cited the Civil Code, which requires a written deed of donation and an official act of acceptance for a valid property transfer.
Without the necessary documents, subdivision properties, even those designated as open spaces, remain private and cannot be subject to improvement, most especially using public funds.
