Woodridge and Javier vs.

ARB Construction
G.R. No. 157285, February 16, 2007

FACTS:
Petitioners Woodridge and Javier are the usufructuary and the owner of a parcel of land in
Soldiers Hills Subdivision respectively. Said subdivision has a road that makes the petitioners
property accessible to Marcos Alvarez Avenue. However, Respondent ARB, the owner and
developer of the subdivision, fenced the perimeter of the said road fronting the properties of the
petitioners which effectively cut off the latters access to and from the public highway. This is
despite the offer of the petitioners to pay the respondent the amount of P 50,000 for the use of
the road. The trial court, on its decision, ordered the respondent to cease and desist from
preventing the petitioners in using the subject road or any other road in the subdivision. This is
because the road has already been withdrawn from the commerce of men as the ownership of
which was automatically vested in the government due for being a part of the approved
subdivision plan that intends the disputed parcel of land as a road. The trial court went on ruling
that no compensation is needed to pay the respondent, since said road is a public property.
However, the CA ruled that said parcel of land does not automatically become a government
property and the award of P 50,000 as indemnity for the use of the road is reasonable. The
petitioners were unsatisfied with the decision hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the disputed parcel of land is considered as a government property.
RULING:
NO. Contrary to the position of petitioners, the use of the subdivision roads by the general public
does not strip it of its private character. The road is not converted into public property by mere
tolerance of the subdivision owner of the publics passage through it. The local government
should first acquire them by donation, purchase or expropriation, if they are to be utilized as a
public road. Therefore, until and unless the roads are donated, ownership remains with the
owner-developer. This is not to say, however, that ARB may readily exclude petitioners from
passing through the only access they have to the public highway. The petitioners are then
entitled to easement of right of way subject to a reasonable indemnity after proper
determination.