13.) Ignacio vs. Director of Lands and Valeriano

VOL.
108, MAY 30, 1960 335

Ignacio vs. Director of Lands and Valeriano
[No. L-12958. May 30, 1960]
FAUSTINO IGNACIO, applicant and appellant, vs. THE

DIRECTOR OF LANDS and LAUREANO VALERIANO,
oppositors and appellees.
1. PROPERTY; LAND FORMED BY ACTION OF THE SEA.—

Land formed by the action of the sea is property of the state;
Francisco vs. Government of the P.I., 28 Phil., 505, involving a land
claimed by a private person and subject to the ebb and flow of the
tides of the Manila Bay.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE;

DECLARATION NECESSARY.—Until a formal declaration on
the part of the Government, through the executive department or
the legislature, to the effect that land is no longer needed for coast
guard service, for public use or for special industries, they continue
to be part of the public domain; not available for private
appropriation or ownership.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal

(Pasay City). Pérez, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
David S. Ignacio for appellant.
_______________
4 See Arts. 248 & 263(3), Rev. Penal Code.

5 U.S. vs. Balaba, 37 Phil., 260; U.S. vs. Lahoylahoy, et al., 38 Phil., 330; People
vs. Cho, et al., 45 Phil., 137.
336
336 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Acting Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and

Solicitor Crispin V. Bautista for appellee Director of Lands.
Benjamin H. Aquino for appellee Laureano Veleriano.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
Faustino Ignacio is appealing the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, dismissing his application for the registration of a
parcel of land.
On January 25, 1950, Ignacio filed an application for the
registration of a parcel of land (mangrove), situated in barrio Gasac,
Navotas, Rizal, with an area of 37,877 square meters. Later, he
amended his application by alleging among others that he owned the
parcel applied for by right of accretion. To the application, the
Director of Lands, Laureano Valeriano and Domingo Gutierrez filed
oppositions. Gutierrez later withdrew his opposition. The Director of
Lands claimed the parcel applied for as a portion of the public
domain, for the reason that neither the applicant nor his predecessor-
in-interest possessed sufficient title thereto, not having acquired it
either by composition title from the Spanish government or by
possessory information title under the Royal Decree of February 13,
1894, and that he had not possessed the same openly, continuously
and adversely under a bona fide claim of ownership since July 26,
1894. In his turn, Valeriano alleged that he was holding the land by
virtue of a permit granted him by the Bureau of Fisheries, issued on
January 13, 1947, and approved by the President,
It is not disputed that the land applied for adjoins a parcel owned
by the applicant which he had acquired from the Government by
virtue of a free patent title in 1936. It has also been established that
the parcel in question was formed by accretion and alluvial deposits
337
VOL. 108, MAY 30, 1960 337

caused by the action of the Manila Bay which borders it on the

southwest. Applicant Ignacio claims that he had occupied the land
since 1935, planting it with api-api trees, and that his possession
thereof had been continuous, adverse and public for a period of
twenty years until said possession was disturbed by oppositor
Valeriano.
On the other hand, the Director of Lands sought to prove that the
parcel is foreshore land, covered by the ebb and flow of the tide and,
therefore, formed part of the public domain.
After hearing, the trial court dismissed the application, holding
that the parcel formed part of the public domain. In his appeal,
Ignacio assigns the following errors:
"I. The lower court erred in holding that the land in question,
altho an accretion to the land of the applicant-appellant,
does not belong to him but forms part of the public domain.
"II. Granting that the land in question forms part of the public
domain, the lower court nevertheless erred in not declaring
the same to be the property of the applicant-appellant, the
said land not being necessary for any public use or purpose
and in not ordering at the same time its registration in the
name of applicantappellant in the present registration
proceedings.
"III. The lower court erred in not holding that the land in
question now belongs to the applicant-appellant by virtue of
acquisitive prescription, the said land having ceased to be of
the public domain and became the private or patrimonial
property of the State.
"IV. The lower court erred in not holding that the oppositor
Director of Lands is now in estoppel from claiming the land
in question as a land of the public domain."
Appellant contends that the parcel belongs to him by the law of

accretion, having been formed by gradual deposit by action of the
Manila Bay, and he cites Article 457 of the New Civil Code (Article
366, Old Civil Code), which provides that:
"To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion
which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters."
338

The article cited is clearly inapplicable because it refers to accretion

or deposits on the banks of rivers, while the accretion in the present
case was caused by action of the Manila Bay.
Appellant next contends that Articles 1, 4 and 5 of the Law of
Waters are not applicable because they refer to accretions formed by
the sea, and that Manila Bay cannot be considered as a sea. We find
said contention untenable. A bay is a part of the sea, being a mere
indentation of the same:
"Bay.—An opening into the land where the water is shut in on all sides
except at the entrance; an inlet of the sea; an arm of the sea, distinct from a
river, a bending or curbing of the shore of the sea or of a lake." 7 C.J. 1013-
1014 (Cited in Francisco. Philippine Law of Waters and Water Rights p. 6)
Moreover, this Tribunal has in some cases applied the Law of Waters
on Lands bordering Manila Bay. (See the cases of Ker & Co. vs.
Cauden, 6 Phil., 732, involving a parcel of land bounded on the sides
by Manila Bay, where it was held that such land formed by the
action of the sea is property of the State; Francisco vs. Government
of the P.I., 28 Phil., 505, involving a land claimed by a private
person and subject to the ebb and flow of the tides of the Manila
Bay).
Then the applicant argues that granting that the land in question
formed part of the public domain, having been gained from the sea,
the trial court should have declared the same no longer necessary for
any public use or purpose, and therefore, became disposable and
available for private ownership. Article 4 of the Law of Waters of
1866 reads thus:
"ART. 4. Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits

caused by the action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When they
are no longer washed by the waters of the sea and are not necessary for
purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or
for the coastguard service, the Government shall declare them to be the
property of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as increment
thereof."
339
VOL. 108, MAY 30, 1960 339

Interpreting Article 4 of the Law of Waters of 1866, in the case of

Natividad vs. Director of Lands, (CA) 37 Off. Gaz., 2905, it was
there held that:
"Article 4 of the Law of Waters of 1866 provides that when a portion of the
shore is 110 longer washed by the waters of the sea and is not necessary for
purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or
for coastguard service, the government shall declare it to be the property of
the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as an increment thereof. We
believe that only the executive and possibly the legislative departments have
lh; authority and the power to make the declaration that any land so gained
by the sea, is not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the
establishment of special industries, or for coast-guard service. If no such
declaration has been made by said departments, the lot in question forms
part of the public domain." (Natividad vs. Director of Lands, supra.)
The reason for this pronouncement, according to this Tribunal in the

case of Vicente Joven y Monteverde vs. Director of Lands, 93 Phil.,
134, (cited in Velayo's Digest, Vol. I, p. 52).
"* * * is undoubtedly that the courts are neither primarily called upon, nor
indeed in a position to determine whether any public land are to be used for
the purposes specified in Article 4 of the Law of Waters."
Consequently, until a formal declaration on the part of the

Government, through the executive department or the Legislature, to
the effect that the land in question is no longer needed for coast
guard service, for public use or for special industries, they continue
to be part of the public domain, not available for private
appropriation or ownership.
Appellant next contends that he had acquired the parcel in
question through acquisitive prescription, having possessed the same
for over ten years. In answer, suffice it to say that land of the public
domain is not subject to ordinary prescription. In the case of Insular
Government vs. Aldecoa & Co., 19 Phil., 505, this Court said:
340

Magdalena Estate, Inc., vs. Yuchengco, etc
"The occupation or material possession of any land formed upon the shore
by accretion, without previous permission from the proper authorities,
although the occupant may have held the same as owner for seventeen years
and constructed a wharf on the land, is illegal and is a mere detainer,
inasmuch as such land is outside of the sphere of commerce; it pertains to
the national domain; it is intended for public uses and for the benefit of
those who live nearby."
We deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised in the

appeal.
In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby
affirmed, with costs.
Parás, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,

Concepción, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
________________
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

13.) Ignacio vs. Director of Lands and Valeriano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13.) Ignacio vs. Director of Lands and Valeriano

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

13.) Ignacio vs. Director of Lands and Valeriano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL.

108, MAY 30, 1960 335

[No. L-12958. May 30, 1960]

FAUSTINO IGNACIO, applicant and appellant, vs. THE

1. PROPERTY; LAND FORMED BY ACTION OF THE SEA.—

2. ID.; ID.; WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE;

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal

4 See Arts. 248 & 263(3), Rev. Penal Code.

336 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Acting Assistant Solicitor General Paciﬁco P. de Castro and

VOL. 108, MAY 30, 1960 337

caused by the action of the Manila Bay which borders it on the

Appellant contends that the parcel belongs to him by the law of

338 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

The article cited is clearly inapplicable because it refers to accretion

"ART. 4. Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits

VOL. 108, MAY 30, 1960 339

Interpreting Article 4 of the Law of Waters of 1866, in the case of

The reason for this pronouncement, according to this Tribunal in the

Consequently, until a formal declaration on the part of the

340 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised in the

Parás, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like