7/28/2019 .Prop Title v Republic vs CA.2

1/1

1

Republic v. CAFacts:

A lot with an area of 17,311 sq.m. situated in Barrio Pinagbayanan, Pila, Laguna and 20 meters fromthe shore of Laguna de Bay; was purchased by Benedicto del Rio from Angel Pili on 19 April 1909.The Deed of Sale evidencing said purchase is duly recorded with the Registry of Deeds of Sta. Cruz,Laguna. The land was declared for tax purposes beginning the year 1918, and the realty taxesthereon had been paid since 1948. When Benedicto del Rio died in 1957, his heirs extrajudiciallypartitioned his estate and the subject parcel passed on to his son, Santos del Rio, as the latter's sharein the inheritance. Santos del Rio filed his application for registration of said parcel on 9 May 1966.The application was opposed by the Director of Lands and by private oppositors, petitioners in G.R.No. L-43190.Sometime before 1966, private oppositors obtained permission from Santos del Rio to construct duckhouses on the land in question. Although there was no definite commitment as to rentals, some ofthem had made voluntary payments to private respondent. In violation of the original agreement,private oppositors constructed residential houses on the land which prompted private respondent tofile an ejectment suit against the former in 1966. Meanwhile, during the latter part of 1965 and in1966, private oppositors had simultaneously filed their respective sales applications with the Bureauof Lands, and in 1966, they opposed Santos del Rio's application for registration. The CFI Laguna

dismissed the application for registration. Applicant appealed and obtained a favorable judgment fromthe Court of Appeals, setting aside that of the trial court. The Director of Lands and the privateoppositors filed their respective Petitions for Review of said decision.Issue:

Whether the land in question, is really part of the foreshore lands?Held:

Property, which includes parcels of land found in Philippine territory, is either of public dominion or ofprivate ownership. Public lands, or those of public dominion, have been described as those which,under existing legislation are not the subject of private ownership, and are reserved for publicpurposes. The New Civil Code enumerates properties of public dominion in Articles 420 and 502thereof. Article 402 includes those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents,ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similarcharacter; and those which belong to the State without being for public use, and are intended for

some public service or for the development of the national wealth" as property belonging to publicdominion. Article 502 adds "rivers and their natural beds; continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks running in their natural beds and the beds themselves; waters rising continuously orintermittently on lands of public dominion; and lakes and lagoons formed by Nature on public lands and their beds; to the enumeration.Foreshore land is that part of (the land) which is between high and low water and left dry by the fluxand reflux of the tides; or the strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and that isalternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide. In the present case, since the inundation of aportion of the land near the lake is not due to flux and reflux of tides, it thus cannot be considered a foreshore land within the meaning cited by the Director of Lands.While at the time of the grant of free patent to respondent Morato, the land was not reached by thewater, however, due to gradual sinking of the land caused by natural calamities, the sea advanceshad permanently invaded a portion of subject land. As disclosed at the trial, through the testimony of

the court-appointed commissioner, Engr. Abraham B. Pili, the land was under water during high tide inthe month of August 1978. The water margin covers half of the property, but during low tide, the wateris about a kilometer.