Public Plaza vs. Private Property: Land Ownership Disputes in the Philippines

A town plaza sits at the heart of many Philippine communities — a space for gatherings, markets, and public events. But what happens when a private entity, such as a religious institution, claims ownership over that same land? The Supreme Court has addressed this question in a notable case involving the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo and the Municipality of Buruanga in Aklan. The ruling provides important answers: land designated and used as a public plaza is property of public dominion, which cannot be privately owned — even by institutions with deep historical roots in the area.

The Dispute: Church vs. Municipality Over Lot 138

The conflict began in Buruanga, Aklan, where the Roman Catholic Church had constructed its church in 1894 on a parcel of land identified as Lot 138. Decades later, the Municipality of Buruanga built its municipal hall, a health center, and other public facilities on portions of the same lot. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo filed a complaint seeking to declare ownership over the entire Lot 138.

The Municipality countered that Lot 138 had been surveyed as municipal property in 1909, with a decree issued in 1919, and that the land had served as a public plaza for over 50 years. The Regional Trial Court divided the lot, awarding the portion where the church building stood to the Church and declaring the remaining areas as public plaza. The Court of Appeals affirmed this but modified the ruling, classifying the contested portions as property of public dominion — owned by no private party. The Supreme Court upheld this decision.

What Is Property of Public Dominion?

Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, property of public dominion includes things intended for public use, such as roads, plazas, bridges, and similar spaces. This classification carries a significant consequence: property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be sold, acquired by prescription, or subjected to private ownership.

The Supreme Court emphasized that for a claimant to establish private ownership over land used publicly, there must be clear evidence of exclusive acts of dominion — not mere tolerance of public structures or activities. In this case, the Church failed to demonstrate such exclusive control over the contested portions of the lot.

The Role of Historical Land Grants

During the Spanish colonial period, the Laws of the Indies governed town planning, designating areas for churches, municipal buildings, and public squares. The Church argued that these laws supported its claim over the entire lot. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, noting that the Laws of the Indies did not require that land designated for a church occupy an entire block or be bounded on all four sides by streets.

While historical context matters, it does not dictate current ownership when long-standing public use is evident. The Court found no proof that the Church exercised proprietary acts over the contested portions, especially given the presence of municipal buildings, a health center, and public festivities on the land.

Why This Case Matters

This ruling reinforces a key principle in Philippine property law: long-term public use can override private claims, even those rooted in historical presence. For municipalities, the decision affirms their authority over areas demonstrably used for public purposes. For private landowners, it serves as a warning that passive tolerance of public use may lead to the land being classified as property of public dominion.

The Court also noted that the Municipality itself could not claim private ownership over the contested lots — they were classified as public dominion, belonging to no private party. This distinction is crucial: public spaces are held for the benefit of the community, not for the profit or control of any single entity.

Practical Takeaways

• Public use is a strong indicator. Land continuously used as a plaza or public space is presumed to be property of public dominion.
• Burden of proof lies with the claimant. Those asserting private ownership over publicly used land must present clear evidence of exclusive dominion and control.
• Historical grants are not conclusive. Spanish-era laws provide context but do not automatically establish current private ownership.
• Active assertion of rights is essential. Private owners must consistently manage and assert their property rights to avoid implied dedication to public use.
• Municipalities should formalize public spaces. Proper designation and management of plazas and parks can prevent future ownership disputes.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.