You are on page 1of 2

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

GR No. 46373 January 29, 1940

CARLOS LEVER, appellant-appellant


vs.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-respondent.

D. Benedict M. Javier and Mr.


Gibbs & McDonough tor General Assistant, Mr. Zulueta, in representation of the Commonwealth of
the Philippines.

Avancea, J.:

The July 17, 1919 Carlos Palanca obtained a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan to
record four parcels of land adjacent to each other and separated from each other by only certain
ways of water called estuaries. Before that sentencing and after performed the tests, the
Government through the Attorney General, filed a petition to reopen Juico to prove the existence of
streams and navigable rivers within the field, so that the situation is fixed thereof in the plane and to
be excluded from enrollment. The court refused this request on the grounds innecessario reopen the
case for that purpose, for even in the field, the inscription of this would not affect the property rights
of the Insular Government or the public use of such means of communication, it would always be
safe under Article 39 of the Law of Property Registry.

Later the Government of the Philippines presented the present action against Carlos Palanca
claiming that this illegally occupying portions of the Rio del Estero Sapang Viray and sedate, which
are navigable, and asked to be forced to open them, leaving them in their original state. The Court
dismissed this action, but its resolution is high to the Court of Appeals stated that the plaster and Rio
Viray said Sapang sedate and Estero are domain and public use and that the right acquired by
Carlos Palanca field in which are can not affect the right of the state on them as property for public
use.

Carlos Palanca rose to turn on appeal by certiorari, the decision of the Court of Appeal to the
Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals stated, in view of the evidence presented in the case, the Rio Estero Sapang
Viray and sedate are within the field of Carlos Palanca, which was subject to the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan issued on 17 July 1919, and that these are navigable river and
estuary and common use, serve as communication between two rivers, which flow into the Bay of
Manila, and streams in them are public domain and use , useful for commerce, navigation and
fishing and they had these conditions when the property that belonged includes even the state.

These being the facts, the application or recurco brought before the Court should be denied, also
confirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

We find founded the pretension of the appellant that the decision issued by the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan on July 17, 1919 and Torrens title issued, in consequence, in favor of Carlos
Palanca establishes the nonexistence of the river and estuary in question as navigable. In that
decision, although it was said that the land was crossed by certain routes of water called estuaries,
there is no statement that these streams were not navigable. Moreover, when the government asked
opportunity to try some of these streams were navigable, the court denied this opportunity for the
reason that if they were actually navigable, the Government's right to, by reason of such condition of
Viray and the Estero River Sapang sedate as navigable, it has not been subject to judicial decision.

For the rest, and this river and navigable estuary, it useful for commerce, navigation and navigation
and fishing, have the character of public domain and legal condition to this effect has not been
affected by the possession of Carlos Palanca, any have been the time of this possession, please be
prescription against state property in the public domain.

For these reasons the appeal is denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals confirmed. So is
ordered.

Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, MM., Concur.

You might also like