Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-20300-01 April 30, 1965
ANTONINO I!ON, AELAIA . RE"ES, CONSOLACION EGOLLACION, ET
AL., petitioners,
vs.
#ON. $UAN E G. RORIGUE!, %s S&'r&(%r) o* A+ri',l(,r& - N%(,r%l R&so,r'&s,
#ERACLITO MONTAL.AN, %s A'(i/+ ir&'(or o* 0is1&ri&s,
MIGUEL TOLENTINO, REPU.LIC O0 T#E P#ILIPPINES, ET AL., respondents.
-----------------------------
G.R. Nos. L-20355-56 April 30, 1965
REPU.LIC O0 T#E P#ILIPPINES, T#E SECRETAR" O0 AGRICULTURE -
NATURAL RESOURCES, IRECTOR O0 0IS#ERIES, MIGUEL TOLENTINO, %/2
CLEMENCIA TOLENTINO, petitioners,
vs.
#ON. COURT O0 APPEALS, ANTONINO I!ON, AELAIA . RE"ES,
CONSOLACION E EGOLLACION, ARTEMIO I!ON, AMORANO I!ON,
REMEIOS MANAPAT S"-$UCO, %/2 LEONILA SIOC#I GOCO, respondents.
Jalandoni and Jamir for petitioners Antonino Dizon, et al.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents Republic, et al.
Miguel Tolentino for and in his on behalf.
.ARRERA, J.:
These are separate appeals instituted by Antonino i!on, et al. "#.R. Nos. $-%&'&&-
&() and the Republic of the Philippines, et al. "#.R. Nos. $-%&'**-*+), fro, a sin-le
decision of the Court of Appeals, as ,odified by its resolution of Au-ust %&, (.+%,
holdin- that $ots Nos. /. and ( of subdivision plan Psd.-%0./( are parts of the
navi-able boundary of the 1acienda Calata-an, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-0%%, and declarin- the occupants i!on, et al. possessors in -ood faith, entitled
to re,ain therein until rei,bursed, by the intervenor Republic of the Philippines, of the
necessary e2penses ,ade on the lots in the su, of P/&,&&&.&& and P%*,&&&.&&,
respectively.
The facts of these cases, briefly stated, are as follo3s4
1acienda Calata-an o3ned by Alfonso and 5acobo 6obel 3as ori-inally covered by
TCT No. T-0%%. 7n (.'8, the 1acienda constructed a pier, called 9:antia-o $andin-,9
about +&& ,eters lon- fro, the shore into the navi-able 3aters of the Pa-aspas Bay,
to be used by vessels loadin- su-ar produced by the 1acienda su-ar ,ill. ;hen the
su-ar ,ill ceased its operation in (./8, the o3ners of the 1acienda converted the pier
into a fishpond di<e and built additional stron- di<es enclosin- an area of about '&
hectares "of the Bay) and converted the sa,e into a fishpond. The 1acienda o3ners
also enclosed a si,ilar area of about '0 hectares of the Bay on the other side of the
pier 3hich 3as also converted into a fishpond.
7n (./., the 6obels ordered the subdivision of the 1acienda by orderin- the
preparation of the subdivision plan Psd-%0./( 3herein fishpond No. ( "3ith '&
hectares) 3as referred to as $ot No. ( and fishpond No. % "3ith '0 hectares) 3as
referred to as $ot No. /.. The plan 3as approved by the irector of $ands, and the
Re-ister of eeds issued, fro, TCT No. T-0%%, TCT No. %0'. for lots /. and ( in the
na,e of 5acobo 6obel.
7n (.*&, 5acobo 6obel sold to Antonino i!on, et al. $ot /. for 3hich said purchasers
obtained at first TCT No. T-%0/& and later T-/0(8, $ot (, on the other hand, 3as
purchased by Carlos #oco, et al., 3ho, in turn, sold one-half thereof to Manuel :y-
5uco, et al. Transfer Certificate of Title No. /(*. 3as issued in the na,es of the #ocos
and :y-5ucos.
=n May %/, (.*%, Mi-uel Tolentino filed 3ith the Bureau of >isheries an application for
ordinary fishpond per,it or lease for $ot /., and an application for a si,ilar per,it, for
$ot (, 3as filed by his dau-hter Cle,encia Tolentino.
The i!ons, :y-5ucos, and #ocos filed a protest 3ith the Bureau of >isheries, clai,in-
the properties to be private land covered by a certificate of title. This protest 3as
dis,issed by the irector of >isheries, on the -round that the areas applied for are
outside the boundaries of TCT No. T-0%% of 1acienda Calata-an. This rulin- 3as
based upon the findin-s of the co,,ittee created by the :ecretary of A-riculture and
Natural Resources to loo< into the ,atter, that $ots ( and /. are not ori-inally included
3ithin the boundaries of the hacienda.
=n =ctober (, (.*/, the protestants i!ons, :y-5ucos, and #ocos filed an action in
the Court of >irst 7nstance of Manila "Civ. Case No. %/%'0) to restrain the irector of
>isheries fro, issuin- the fishpond per,its applied for by the Tolentinos. The court
dis,issed this petition for non-e2haustion of ad,inistrative re,edy, it appearin- that
petitioners had not appealed fro, the decision of the irector of >isheries to the
:ecretary of A-riculture and Natural Resources. =n appeal to this Court, the decision
of the lo3er court 3as sustained "#.R. No. $-8+*/, pro,ul-ated April %8, (.*+). The
protestants then filed an appeal 3ith the :ecretary of A-riculture and Natural
Resources. This ti,e, the sa,e 3as dis,issed for bein- filed out of ti,e.!"ph#!.$%t
=n Au-ust (+, (.*+, the i!ons filed Civil Case ('* and the :y-5ucos and #ocos,
Civil Case ('+, in the Court of >irst 7nstance of Batan-as, to ?uiet their titles over $ots
/. and (. Na,ed defendants 3ere the :ecretary of A-riculture and Natural Resources
1
and applicants Tolentinos. The Republic of the Philippines 3as allo3ed to intervene in
vie3 of the findin- by the investi-atin- co,,ittee created by the respondent :ecretary,
that the lots 3ere part of the foreshore area before their conversion into fishponds by
the hacienda-o3ners.
=n 5anuary '&, (.*8, after due hearin-, the Court of >irst 7nstance of Batan-as
pro,ul-ated a @oint decision ,a<in- the findin-, a,on- others, that the subdivision
plan Psd-%0./( 3as prepared in disre-ard of the technical description stated in TCT
No. T-0%%, because the surveyor ,erely follo3ed the e2istin- shoreline and placed his
,onu,ents on the south3est lateral of $ot /., 3hich 3as the pier abuttin- into the
seaA and ,ade the conclusion that $ots ( and /. of Psd-%0./( 3ere part of the
foreshore lands. As the certificate of title obtained by petitioners covered lands not
sub@ect to re-istration, the sa,e 3ere declared null and void, and $ots ( and /. 3ere
declared properties of the public do,ain. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals.
7n its decision of =ctober '(, (.+(, as 3ell as the resolution of Au-ust %&, (.+%, the
appellate court adopted the findin-s of the lo3er court, that the lots in ?uestion are part
of the foreshore area and affir,ed the rulin- cancellin- the titles to plaintiffs. Althou-h
in the decision of =ctober '(, (.+(, the Court of Appeals a3arded to applicants
Tolentinos da,a-es in the a,ount of P%&&.&& per hectare fro, =ctober (, (.*/, 3hen
plaintiffs 3ere notified of the denial of their protest by the irector of >isheries, such
a3ard 3as eli,inated in the resolution of Au-ust %&, (.+%, for the reason that plaintiffs,
3ho relied on the efficacy of their certificates of title, cannot be considered possessors
in bad faith until after the le-ality of their said titles has been finally deter,ined.
Appellants 3ere thus declared entitled to retention of the properties until they are
rei,bursed by the lando3ner, the Republic of the Philippines, of the necessary
e2penses ,ade on the lands, in the su,s of P/&,&&&.&& "for $ot /.) and P%*,&&&.&&
"for $ot (). 7t is fro, this portion of the decision as thus ,odified that defendants
Tolentinos and the intervenor Republic of the Philippines appealed "in #.R. Nos. $-
%&'**-*+), clai,in- that plaintiffsB possession beca,e in bad faith 3hen their protest
a-ainst the application for lease 3as denied by the irector of >isheries. 7n addition,
the intervenor contends that bein- such possessors in bad faith, plaintiffs are not
entitled to rei,burse,ent of the e2penses ,ade on the properties.
7n #.R. Nos. $-%&'&&-&(, plaintiffs i!on, et al., clai, that the findin- that the $ots in
?uestion are part of the seashore or foreshore area 3as erroneous, because fro,
defendantsB o3n evidence, the sa,e appear to be ,arshland before their conversion
into fishponds.
7t is note3orthy in connection 3ith the appeal of plaintiffs, that they do not contest the
e2istence of the pier that 3as used by the hacienda o3ners in the loadin- of their
,anufactured su-ar to vessels. The fact that said pier @utted out +&& ,eters to the sea
indicates that the area over 3hich such ce,ented structure spanned 3as part of the
sea or at least foreshore land. And, plaintiffs 3ere not able to disprove the testi,onial
evidence that the fishponds in ?uestion 3ere constructed by enclosin- the areas 3ith
di<es, usin- the pier as one of the ends of the fishponds. 7t is clear that the areas thus
enclosed and converted into fishponds 3ere really part of the foreshore. This, and the
fact that the subdivision plan Psd-%0./( 3as found to have been prepared not in
accordance 3ith the technical descriptions in TCT No. T-0%% but in disre-ard of it,
support the conclusion reached by both the lo3er court and the Court of Appeals that
$ots /. and ( are actually part of the territorial 3aters and belon- to the :tate. And, it
is an ele,entary principle that the incontestable and indefeasible character of a
Torrens certificate of title does not operate 3hen the land thus covered is not capable
of re-istration.
=n the ,atter of possession of plaintiffs-appellants, the rulin- of the Court of Appeals
,ust be upheld. There is no sho3in- that plaintiffs are not purchasers in -ood faith
and for value. As such title-holders, they have reason to rely on the indefeasible
character of their certificates.
=n the issue of -ood faith of the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals reasoned out4
The concept of possessors in -ood faith -iven in Art. *%+ of the Civil Code
and 3hen said possession loses this character under Art. *%8, needs to be
reconciled 3ith the doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title. :uch
reconciliation can only be achieved by holdin- that the possessor 3ith a
Torrens Title is not a3are of any fla3 in his Title 3hich invalidates it until his
Torrens Title is declared null and void by final @ud-,ent of the Courts.
Even if the doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title 3ere not thus
reconciled, the result 3ould be the sa,e, considerin- the third para-raph of
Art. *%+ 3hich provides that4
ART. *%+. ...
Mista<e upon a doubtful or difficult ?uestion of la3 ,ay be the basis of -ood
faith.
The le-al ?uestion 3hether plaintiffs-appellantsB possession in -ood faith,
under their Torrens Titles ac?uired in -ood faith, does not lose this character
e2cept in the case and fro, the ,o,ent their Titles are declared null and void
by the Courts, a difficult one. Even the ,e,bers of this Court 3ere for a lon-
ti,e divided, t3o to one, on the ans3er. 7t 3as only after several sessions,
3here the results of e2haustive researches on both sides 3ere thorou-hly
discussed, that an undivided Court finally found the ans3er -iven in the ne2t
precedin- para-raph. 1ence, even if it be assu,ed for the sa<e of ar-u,ent
that the :upre,e Court 3ould find that the la3 is not as 3e have stated it in
the ne2t precedin- para-raph and that the plaintiffs-appellants ,ade a
,ista<e in relyin- thereon, such ,ista<e on a difficult ?uestion of la3 ,ay be
the basis of -ood faith. 1ence, their possession in -ood faith does not lose
this character e2cept in the case and fro, the ,o,ent their Torrens Titles are
declared null and void by the Courts.
Cnder the circu,stances of the case, especially 3here the subdivision plan 3as
ori-inally approved by the irector of $ands, 3e are not ready to conclude that the
2
above reasonin- of the Court of Appeals on this point is a reversible error. Needless to
state, as such occupants in -ood faith, plaintiffs have the ri-ht to the retention of the
property until they are rei,bursed the necessary e2penses ,ade on the lands.
;ith respect to the contention of the Republic of the Philippines that the order for the
rei,burse,ent by it of such necessary e2penses constitutes a @ud-,ent a-ainst the
-overn,ent in a suit not consented to by it, suffice it to say that the Republic, on its
o3n initiative, as<ed and 3as per,itted to intervene in the case and thereby sub,itted
itself voluntarily to the @urisdiction of the court.
7N D7E; => T1E >=RE#=7N# C=N:7ERAT7=N:, the decision appealed fro, is
hereby affir,ed in all respects, 3ithout costs. :o ordered.
3