REPUBLIC OF LANDS, represented by the Director of Lands v.

COURT OF APPEALS, JOSEFINA MORATO,

spouses NENITA CO and ANTONIO QUILATAN, REGISTER OF DEEDS
Panganiban, J.
November 14, 1997
G.R. No. 100709

Doctrine

Article 339 (1) of the Civil Code, provides that roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed
by the State, riverbanks, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character are considered devoted to
public use and are property of public ownership.
Art. 402 of the New Civil Code. The following things are property of public dominion:
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by
the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;
(2) 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.

Summary

Facts

When private properties are permanently invaded by the waves, such that these become part of the shore
or beach, these then pass to the public domain and the dispossessed owner does not have any right to the
fruits resulting from the new nature. It is a case of eminent domain.
Morato filed a Free Patent Application for a parcel of land in Calauag, Quezon which was approved and an
original certificate of title was issued under her name, but with the condition that within five years after its
approval, the land shall not be alienated or encumbered. However, just after 9 months, Morato mortgaged
part of it to the spouses who built a house therein and leased another to another person who built a
warehouse. The Director of Lands, having found out said mortgage and lease and that the land is partly
underwater during high tide, wanted to cancel Moratos title and have the land revert to public domain. The
trial court sided with the respondents, but upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was ruled that the mortgage
and lease are a form of encumberance which impairs Moratos use of the property and that such is sufficient
ground for the nullification of such land grant. Considering that the piece of property is gradually being
submerged by the sea, it is considered foreshore land and therefore, it reverts back to public domain and
cannot be subject to the Public Land Act.

Morato secured a free patent for a 1, 265 sq. meter parcel of land with the condition that within five
years after the approval of her application, said property shall not be alienated or encumbered. After
9 months, she mortgaged portion of it to the spouses who introduced improvements and leased it to
Advincula who built a warehouse therein.
Upon the investigation by a land officer, it was found out that part of the land was being claimed by
the waters of Calauag Bay and that there is no more vegetation. Thus, before the Register of
Deeds, he filed a case against the respondents for Moratos title cancelled and that the land revert
to public domain on the grounds that this was in violation of her free patent and that the land has
become foreshore land.
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents and said that the property was only leased and that
the mortgage merely covered the improvements.
Respondent also said that the mortgage did not violate her land grant because it had no effect on
her ownership. She also said that her title was indefeasible.
Petitioner insisted that even Moratos original certificate of title contains seeds of cancellation for it
is subject to the provisions of the Public Land Act.

Ratio/Issues
1. Whether or not Morato violated the conditions of her land grant (YES)
a) Sec. 118 and 124 of the Public Land Act state that land acquired under the free patent shall not be
subject to any encumberance or alienation and that any of the same shall be unlawful and void.
Encumberance is defined as anything that impairs the use or transfer of the property, a burden on the title,
and a legal claim on the estate for discharge of which the estate is liable.
b) Morato cannot fully use and enjoy the land by reason of the lease, a contract that is consensual, bilateral,
and commutative.
c) Despite Moratos claim that she only mortgaged the property out of the kindness of her heart, equity
cannot go against statutory law and is only allowed in the absence of positive law.
d) The ratio behind the Public Land Law was to distribute disposable agricultural land to land-destitute
citizens for their home.
2. Whether or not foreshore land reverts to public domain (YES)
a) Foreshore land is defined as a part of land between the high and low water and left dry by the flux and
reflux of tides. Said property was developed through reclamation and was not considered foreshore at the

time of Moratos land grant, but natural calamities turned it into one so that it already lost vegetation and
portions of it are already under water.
b) See doctrine.
Held
Petition is GRANTED. This Court hereby REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the assailed Decision of
Respondent Court and ORDERS the CANCELLATION of Free Patent. Subject land reverts to the State.

Prepared by: Eunice V. Guadalope