Eugenio de La Cruz v. Court of Appeals

Summary

This case involves a property ownership dispute where petitioner Eugenio De La Cruz claimed a residential lot through 30+ years of adverse possession, seeking reconveyance from purchaser Cristina Villanueva. The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that prescription cannot run against forest lands which remain State property. The Court distinguished this case from Republic vs. Court of Appeals, noting that here petitioner's possession began after the land was already classified as forest reserve, unlike the cited case where possession preceded classification. The Court held that forest lands cannot be acquired through prescription regardless of possession length, and rejected petitioner's estoppel argument since he lacked capacity to encumber State forest land. The decision reinforces the principle that government forest reserves remain inalienable and indisposable, protecting State patrimony from private appropriation through prescription.