I OWN THE LAND, BUT THEY OWN THE PIPES
Or, Can the Government Squat on Your Property Just Because It’s the Government?
By: Atty. Eugenio L. Riego II, LLB, MPA, REB
THE SCENARIO
Let’s talk about Beauty — yes, that’s not her real name, and yes, her story is more twisted than a telenovela plot. Beauty, the proud owner of a newly acquired one-hectare parcel of land, dreamed of developing it into a mango farm, an eco-resort, or at least a place where her goats could graze without judgment.
With her dreams in tow (and several pieces of heavy equipment in convoy), she set off to start development. But just as the backhoe made its glorious debut scoop, something shiny and suspicious caught her eye. No, it wasn’t treasure — it was pipes. Big, buried, government-issued pipes, and a tapping center nestled quietly under a shrub like it had lived there rent-free forever.
Surprised, Beauty did the polite thing. She informed the local water district, expecting at least a thank you or an “Oops, our bad.” But instead, she was told — in a tone soaked in bureaucratic confidence —
“You can’t remove those. You may own the land, but we own the pipes, and they’re staying.”
Now, Beauty, being both smart and classy, didn’t yell. She simply blinked and asked:
“Wait… so I own the land… but I don’t get to use it? That’s like owning a house but being told I can’t move the furniture!”
So now the question is: Can the government just leave its structures on private land and refuse to remove them — even if the owner demands it?
THE ANSWER
Short answer?
Nope. Sorry, Sir Bureaucrat. Being the government doesn’t give you magical squatter powers.
Under Philippine law, private property is protected — not just by the Civil Code, but by no less than the Constitution. If a government agency installs anything on private land without due process, a valid easement, or expropriation, they’re in for legal trouble faster than you can say “Section 9, Article III.”
Let’s be clear: Ownership means control and enjoyment. Article 428 of the Civil Code says:
“The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law.”
This includes the right to exclude others — even if the intruder is wearing a barong and carries a government ID.
So, unless there is a lawful easement, or the property was acquired through eminent domain with just compensation, the government cannot claim a superior right over the land — not even for its beloved water pipes.
RELEVANT SUPREME COURT CASE
This case smells like an old utility line and sounds a lot like the decision in:
De Guzman, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 199423 (2020).
The Court in the above-mentioned cases was confronted with common factual circumstances where the government took control and possession of the subject properties for public use without initiating expropriation proceedings and without payment of just compensation, while the landowners failed for a long period of time to question such government act and later instituted actions for recovery of possession with damages.
- The Court thus determined the landowners’ right to the payment of just compensation and, more importantly, the amount of just compensation. The Court has uniformly ruled that just compensation is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling for purposes of compensation.
THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court didn’t mince words. It ruled in favor of the private landowner, stating that:
“Jurisprudence clearly provides for the landowner’s remedies when his property is taken by the government for public use without the government initiating expropriation proceedings and without payment of just compensation: he may recover his property if its return is still feasible or, if it is not, he may demand payment of just compensation for the land taken. What happened in this case is a de facto expropriation, wherein the … lot was taken and used by respondents for the widening of the existing road without paying the just compensation, not even the requisite condemnation proceedings having been instituted.”
In short: good intentions do not cure illegal occupation. Even if the pipes bring clean water, they can’t wash away private rights.
QUICK ADVICE
So, what’s the moral of this plumbing-meets-property story?
Well, to Beauty and everyone who owns a slice of the Philippines:
If one day you discover that your mango farm is actually a secret headquarters of the local water district — complete with tapping centers, pump stations, or bored utility workers on break — don’t panic.
Do paperwork. Then call your lawyer. Then sue — nicely, of course.
As an absolute owner, you have the right to enjoy, develop, fence, farm, or build on your land, free from unwanted pipes, poles, and public infrastructure — unless the government has paid for the privilege. And if they haven’t, then no amount of “public purpose” justifies acting like legal squatters in barongs.
To our beloved government officials:
Please remember your oath to serve ALL people, including private landowners. Being in public service doesn’t give you a free pass to lay pipelines wherever your mood takes you. Before installing your infrastructure, make sure there’s a legal basis — not just a “Mayor said so” memo.
Because, really — if Beauty can buy land, check the title, hire backhoes, and still be polite while finding unexpected underground surprises, the least the government can do is respect property rights and ask nicely.
So next time you think of building on someone else’s lot, remember:
Pipes may carry water — but not ownership.
Need help enforcing your rights as a landowner?
Been visited by government officials acting like the property is theirs?
Call your lawyer before your land becomes part of a municipal “expansion project” you didn’t approve.
And to all the Beauties out there: know your rights, assert them with class, and never let anyone — not even with a badge and clipboard — tap into your land without tapping into the law first.
Read the latest blog – How Real Estate Suppliers Are Coping with Rising Material Costs
One Comment