Quezon city: The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the donation of subdivision land to a local government unit (LGU) must be in writing for ownership to be transferred. This decision impacts how local governments claim ownership of land intended for public use.

According to Philippines News Agency, the SC Second Division made public a 20-page decision emphasizing that the Quezon City (QC) LGU failed to prove that the open spaces and road lots in Capital Park Homes Subdivision (CPHS) were donated to the city for public use. The SC upheld the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling in favor of a resident, stressing that the QC LGU must present a valid transfer of property.

The SC highlighted that as the QC LGU did not provide a deed of donation or any proof of acceptance as required under the Civil Code, it 'cannot rely solely on ordinances or laws to claim ownership.' The court asserted, 'A written donation is required to transfer ownership legally. Without it, the property remains private and cannot be claimed by the local government.'

Rainier Madrid, a QC taxpayer and resident of the subdivision, initiated a petition to determine whether the areas have been transferred to the city. Originally designated for the exclusive use of CPHS homeowners, the spaces have become accessible to the public, prompting Madrid to question the use of substantial public funds for their improvement, as the properties remain privately owned.

Madrid argued that VV Soliven, CPHS' developer, failed to provide proof of donation to the LGU, insisting that without such proof, the properties cannot be treated as public assets.

The LGU countered by referencing QC Ordinance No. 5852, Series of 1964, which mandates that subdivisions dedicate six percent of their total open spaces for public use and transfer these to the city before any subdivision plan approval. It noted compliance by stating that CPHS' subdivision plan was approved in August 1969.

Meanwhile, the Capital Park Homeowners Association, Inc. (CPHAI) conceded it had no deed of donation but cited a board resolution claiming the properties were donated to the QC LGU. It also challenged Madrid's standing to file the petition, arguing he was not directly affected.

The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the petition, citing Madrid's lack of legal standing and refrained from deciding whether the properties were public or private. However, the CA disagreed, recognizing Madrid's right to file the case due to potential misuse of public funds. It concluded that the areas remain private property, given the absence of proof of donation from the subdivision developer to QC.