Republic V. Court of Appeals 281 SCRA 639

REPUBLIC V.
COURT OF APPEALS
281 SCRA 639

FACTS:
Morato has filed for patent over a parcel of land, of which was granted under the
condition that he would not encumber it for a period of 5 years from issuance of patent. It was
then found out that he mortgaged and leased the lots. The government sought for the
revocation of the patent issued. The trial court and appellate court decided in favor of the
respondents.

HELD:
Foreshore lands have been defined to be that part of the land which is between the high
and low water and left dry by the flux and reflux of the tides. This is the strip of land that lies
between the high and low watermarks and that is alternatively wet and dry according to the
flow of the tide. Foreshore lands may not anymore be the subject of issuance of free patents.
Under property of public ownership or dominion are foreshore lands, as provided for in the Civil
Code.
It is to be noted that when the sea moved towards the estate and the tide invaded it, the
invaded property became foreshore land and passed to the realm of public domain.

LANZAR V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
78 SCRA 130
FACTS:
Lanzar filed for application for registration of title over a parcel of land, to which the
Director of Lands objected to as the land in question, according to him, was part of the
foreshore lands. The trial court adjudicated the land to Lanzar as the said land wasnt necessary
for public utility or establishment of special industries. The CA reversed the decision.

HELD:
Lands added to the shore by accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the
sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no longer washed by the water of the sea
and are not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special
industries, or for coastguard services, then the Government shall declare them to be property
of the owners of the estate adjacent thereto and as increment thereof.

IGNACIO V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
108 PHIL 335
FACTS:
Ignacio filed for the registration of title over a mangrove to which he later said that he
acquired right to the mangrove through accretion.

HELD:
Land formed by the action of the sea is property of the State. Land of the public domain is not
subject to acquisitive prescription.
VILLARICO V. COURT OF APPEALS
309 SCRA 193
FACTS:
Spouses Villarico sought for the confirmation of title over a parcel of land to which they
allege that they absolutely own the land. This was opposed to by a person who posed himself
also to be the rightful owner of the land, aswell as by the Director of Forestry who said that the
subject land is part of forest land and may not be appropriated. Trial and appellate court
dismissed application of petitioners.

HELD:
There has been no showing that a declassification has been made of the land in
question as disposable or alienable. And the record indeed disclosed that applicants have not
introduced any evidence which would have led the court a quo to rule otherwise. Forest lands
cannot be owned by private persons. Possession thereof, no matter how long doesnt ripen to a
registrable title. The adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant or title or
confirmation of an
imperfect title refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the public domain.

FACTS
Sps. Teofilo and Maxima Villarico, filed an application for confirmation of the title over a parcel
of land which they allege they bought from Teofilos father. Said application was opposed by
the Director of Forestry contending that the said land forms part of the public domain as it is
within the unclassified area in Meycauayan and is not available for private appropriation. The
TC dismissed the case since the property forms part of the public domain therefore the
certificate of title is void. The CA affirmed the findings of the Trial Court, thus the case at bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the property still forms part of the public domain
HELD: YES
> The SC held that both the TC and the appellate court correctly adjudged the area to be within
the unclassified forest zone therefore incapable of private appropriation.
> There has been no showing that a declassification has been made declaring the said lands as
disposable or alienable and the spouses have not showed evidence to lead to the court to rule
otherwise.
> Thus, if the land in question still forms part of the public forest, then possession thereof,
however long, cannot convert it into private property as it is beyond the power and jurisdiction
of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens System.

Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 100709, November 14, 1997, 281 SCRA 639
Panganiban, J.

FACTS: Morato filed for a patent on a parcel of land located in Calauag, Quezon, which
was approved, provided that the land shall not be encumbered or alienated within a
period of five years from the date of the issuance of the patent. Later on, the land was
established to be a portion of Calauag Bay, which was five to six feet deep during high
tides and three feet deep on low tides. The water level rose because of the ebb and flow
of tides from the bay and the storms that frequently passed through the area.
Furthermore, it was observed by the Director of Lands from his investigation, that the
land of Morato was leased to Advincula for P100 per month and it was also mortgaged
to Co for P10,000. The Director of Lands filed a suit with the contention that Morato
violated the 5-year prohibitory period and thus the patent should be cancelled and the
land should revert back to the State.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a violation of the prohibition of the patent, and thus, the
subject land should revert back to the ownership of the State.

HELD: Yes. The lease was an encumbrance included in the prohibitions of the patent
because it impairs the use of the land by Morato herself. As for the mortgage, it is a
legal limit on the title and if there will be foreclosure because Morato was not able to pay
her debts, the property will be auctioned. It is also a limitation on Morato's right to enjoy
and possess the land for herself. Encumbrance, as defined, is an impairment on the use
or transfer of property, or a claim or lien on the property where there is a burden on the
title. Thus, Morato clearly violated the terms of the patent on these points. Moreover, the
property became a foreshore land because it turned into a portion of land which was
covered most of the time with water, whether it was low or high tide. Foreshore is
defined as land between high and low waters which is dry depending on the reflux or
ebb of the tides. In accordance with this land reclassification, the land can no longer be
subject to a pending patent application and must be returned to the State.

Republic V. Court of Appeals 281 SCRA 639

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic V. Court of Appeals 281 SCRA 639

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic V. Court of Appeals 281 SCRA 639

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC V.

You might also like