REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT

BUREAU vs. FELIX S. IMPERIAL JR., FELIZA SREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the
DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU vs. FELIX S. IMPERIAL JR., FELIZA S. IMPERIAL,
ELIAS S. IMPERIAL, MIRIAM S. IMPERIAL, LOLITA ALCAZAR, SALVADOR ALCAZAR, EANCRA
CORPORATION, and the REGISTER OF DEEDS of LEGASPI CITY
G.R. No. 130906 February 11, 1999

FACTS: On September 12, 1917, the late Elias Imperial was issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) 408
(500) pursuant to Decree No. 55173 of then Court of First Instance of Albay. OCT No. 55173 was
subdivided and further subdivided resulting in the issuance of several titles, which are now the subjects of
herein petition in the name of private respondents. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed a case with
the trial court to judicially declare the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) issued to herein private
respondents null and void on the ground that the subject land, on which the OCT was based, has the
features of a foreshore land based on an investigation conducted by the DENR, Region V, Legazpi City.
Respondents, on the other hand contend that Director of Lands found Jose Baritua's land covered by
TCT No.18655, which stemmed from OCT 408(500), to be "definitely outside of the foreshore area."

Within the time for pleading, private respondents EANCRA Corporation, Lolita Alcazar and Salvador
Alcazar filed their answer with cross-claim, while the rest, namely, Felix S. Imperial, Feliza S. Imperial,
Elias S. Imperial and Miriam S. Imperial filed a motion to dismiss. They contended that the adjudication
by the cadastral court is binding against the whole world including the Republic since the cadastral
proceedings are in rem and the government itself through the Director of Lands instituted the proceedings
and was a direct and active participant therein. Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed
an objection to the motion to dismiss. After hearing the motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed the
complaint on the ground that the judgment rendered by the cadastral court in G.R. Cad. Rec. No. 88 and
the Courts resolution in the petition to quiet title, G.R. 85770, both decreed that the parcel of land covered
by OCT No. 408 (500) was not foreshore. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate
court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit and for failure to file the appellants
brief within the extended period granted to petitioner.

Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should be granted.

HELD: Yes.
At the core of the controversy is whether the parcels of land in question are foreshore lands. Foreshore
land is a part of the alienable land of the public domain and may be disposed of only by lease and not
otherwise. It was defined as "that part (of the land) which is between high and low water and left dry by
the flux and reflux of the tides." It is also known as "a strip of land that lies between the high and low
water marks and, is alternatively wet and dry according to the flow of the tide."

The classification of public lands is a function of the executive branch of government, specifically the
director of lands (now the director of the Lands Management Bureau). The decision of the director of
lands when approved by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) as to questions of fact is conclusive upon the court. The principle behind this ruling is that the
subject has been exhaustively weighed and discussed and must therefore be given credit. This doctrine
finds no application, however, when the decision of the director of lands is revoked by, or in conflict with
that of, the DENR Secretary.

There is allegedly a conflict between the findings of the Director of Lands and the DENR, Region V, in the
present case. Respondents contend that the Director of Lands found Jose Baritua's land covered by TCT
No.18655, which stemmed from OCT 408(500), to be "definitely outside of the foreshore area."
Petitioner, on the other hand, claims that subsequent investigation of the DENR, Region V, Legazpi City,
disclosed that the land covered by OCT No. 408 (500) from whence the titles were derived "has the
features of a foreshore land." The contradictory views of the Director of Lands and the DENR, Region V,
Legazpi City, on the true nature of the land, which contradiction was neither discussed nor resolved by
the RTC, cannot be the premise of any conclusive classification of the land involved.

The need, therefore, to determine once and for all whether the lands subject of petitioner's reversion
efforts are foreshore lands constitutes good and sufficient cause for relaxing procedural rules and
granting the third and fourth motions for extension to file appellant's brief. Petitioner's appeal presents an
exceptional circumstance impressed with public interest and must then be given due course.

Petitioner Republic assailed the dismissal of its appeal on purely technical grounds. Petitioner also
alleged that it has raised meritorious grounds which, if not allowed to be laid down before the proper
Court, will result to the prejudice of, and irreparable injury to, public interest, as the Government would
lose its opportunity to recover what it believes to be non-registerable lands of the public domain.

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court ruled that the question of what constitutes good and
sufficient cause that will merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the court. It has the power to
relax or suspend the rules or to except a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrants
or when the purpose of justice requires it. In the case at bar, the need to determine once and for all
whether the lands subject of petitioners reversion efforts are foreshore lands constitutes good and
sufficient cause for relaxing the procedural rules and granting the third and fourth motions for extensions
to file appellants brief. Petitioner Republics appeal presented an exceptional circumstance impressed
with public interest which in the Courts discretion must be given due course.