In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed conflicting claims over a parcel of land, ruling that foreshore lands belong to the public domain and cannot be privately owned through free patents or Torrens titles. The Court emphasized that the inalienable character of public lands remains, regardless of any mistakes made by government officials in granting titles. This ruling highlights the importance of verifying the nature and status of land before asserting ownership, especially in coastal areas where foreshore lands are common. The decision clarifies that even long-term occupation does not convert public land into private property, reinforcing the State’s authority over its natural resources.

Coastal Conflict: Can Foreshore Land Ever Truly Be Private Property?

The case of Venus Batayola Baguio, et al. vs. Heirs of Ramon Abello arose from a dispute over a 16,295-square-meter parcel of land in Bantayan Island, Cebu. The Abello heirs claimed ownership based on Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1208, issued to their predecessor in 1967. The Batayola group, on the other hand, asserted their rights through OCT No. 0-24953 and a sales patent application, arguing continuous occupation since the 1940s. The central legal question was whether the disputed parcel, characterized as foreshore land, could be validly titled to private individuals, considering the constitutional and statutory provisions governing public lands.

The legal battle began when the Abello heirs filed a complaint seeking to nullify the titles issued to the Batayola group, asserting that the Bureau of Lands (BL-VII) lacked jurisdiction to award the land because it was already private property. The Batayola group countered that OCT No. 1208 was invalid due to their prior occupation and the land’s status as public land during the initial survey. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, declaring the disputed parcel as foreshore land and nullifying all the parties’ titles. This decision was grounded on the principle that foreshore lands are part of the public domain and cannot be privately owned.

A crucial aspect of the case involved determining whether the action was one for reversion, which requires the involvement of the Solicitor General, or for nullity of title, which does not. The Supreme Court clarified that the action was indeed for nullity of title. It emphasized that the Abello heirs alleged ownership of the disputed parcel, arguing that the BL-VII decision was void because its subject had become private land titled in their favor. The difference between these actions lies in the character of ownership alleged. A reversion suit admits State ownership, while an action for nullity of title asserts a pre-existing right of ownership by the plaintiff.

Building on this principle, the Court affirmed the CA’s ruling that the root issue was the nature and legal status of the disputed land. The Court emphasized the Regalian Doctrine. This doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State and cannot become private property unless declared alienable and disposable by the government. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that the incontestable character of a Torrens title does not apply when the land covered is not capable of registration. It also highlighted that mistakes made by government officers do not waive the State’s rights.

The Court then examined the evidence presented regarding the nature of the disputed parcel. It considered conflicting reports from the Bureau of Lands, survey plans, and testimonial evidence. The Del Monte report, prepared in connection with the Abello heirs’ sales patent application, described the land as foreshore land, gradually filled in by the efforts of the Batayola group. The testimony of Batayola and Pacina, as well as other witnesses, supported the claim that the land was reached by seawater during high tide and required significant earthworks to make it habitable. The Court gave more weight to the testimonies of Batayola and Pacina, the long-time occupants of the disputed parcel. Their assertions were supported by the testimonies of non-parties to the case.

Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the disputed parcel was indeed foreshore land. According to Article 420 of the New Civil Code, properties of public dominion include “banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character.” This classification renders foreshore lands non-registrable. The Court cited Republic of the Phil. v. CA, holding that foreshore lands belong to the public domain and cannot be the subject of free patents or Torrens titles. “When the sea moved towards the estate and the tide invaded it, the invaded property became foreshore land and passed to the realm of the public domain.”

Turning to the validity of the titles held by the parties, the Court first addressed OCT No. 1208, issued to Diego Abello. The Court noted that the BL-VII decision, which excluded the disputed parcel from the survey plan underlying OCT No. 1208, had become final and executory. More importantly, the Court found that the disputed parcel was foreshore land and, therefore, non-registrable at the time Diego filed his free patent application in 1961 and when OCT No. 1208 was issued in 1967. The Court also pointed out that Diego misrepresented the disputed parcel as agricultural land in his free patent application, which, under Section 91 of the Public Land Act, ipso facto produces the cancellation of the title. Due to that misrepresentation, his title to the land should be deemed canceled.

The Court then examined the rights claimed by the Batayola group. The BL-VII decision had given them preferential rights to file appropriate public lands applications, but only if they were qualified. However, the Batayola group filed free patent applications instead of foreshore lease applications, as required by Sections 58, 59, and 61 of the Public Land Act for foreshore lands. “The lands comprised in classes (a), (b), and (c) of section fifty-nine shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise.” Furthermore, Presidential Proclamation No. 2151, issued in 1981, had declared Bantayan Island a Wilderness Area, withdrawing all lands from any form of disposition. The Batayola group failed to file the appropriate application; repeating the same error committed by Diego. Even if the disputed parcel had somehow become disposable agricultural land, the FP and OCT issued to Batayola were still void because they were issued after Presidential Proclamation No. 2151.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether foreshore land could be validly titled to private individuals, considering its nature as part of the public domain. The Court had to determine if the disputed parcel was indeed foreshore land and, if so, whether the titles held by the parties were valid.
What is foreshore land?	Foreshore land refers to the land bordering the sea, lying between the high and low water marks, alternately covered and uncovered by the tide. It is considered part of the public domain and is generally not subject to private ownership.
What is the Regalian Doctrine?	The Regalian Doctrine is a principle in Philippine law that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. This doctrine means that private ownership of land must be traced back to a valid grant from the government.
What is the difference between an action for reversion and an action for nullity of title?	An action for reversion admits State ownership of the land and seeks to return it to the public domain. An action for nullity of title asserts a pre-existing right of ownership by the plaintiff, arguing that the defendant’s title is invalid.
Why were the titles of both the Abello heirs and the Batayola group invalidated?	The titles were invalidated because the Court determined that the disputed parcel was foreshore land, which is not subject to private ownership. Neither party could validly claim ownership over land that belongs to the public domain.
What is a free patent, and why was it relevant to this case?	A free patent is a government grant of public agricultural land to a qualified applicant. In this case, both Diego Abello and the Batayola group attempted to obtain free patents over the foreshore land, which is not considered agricultural and is not subject to free patent disposition.
What is a foreshore lease, and why was it important for the Batayola group?	A foreshore lease is a type of lease agreement the government can enter into that allows private individuals to use foreshore lands for certain purposes, provided it is in accordance with law. Given that the disputed parcel was foreshore land, the Batayola group should have applied for a foreshore lease instead of a free patent.
What was the effect of Presidential Proclamation No. 2151 on this case?	Presidential Proclamation No. 2151 declared Bantayan Island a Wilderness Area, withdrawing all lands from any form of disposition. This proclamation further undermined the Batayola group’s claim, as their free patent was issued after the proclamation took effect.
Does this ruling mean that long-term occupants of foreshore land have no rights?	No, that is not correct. Long-term occupants may have preferential rights to lease the land from the government, but they cannot claim private ownership through free patents or Torrens titles. Occupants must follow the proper legal procedures to lease the land.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that foreshore lands are part of the public domain and cannot be privately owned through free patents or Torrens titles. The ruling underscores the importance of verifying the nature and status of land before asserting ownership and highlights the State’s authority over its natural resources. The decision serves as a reminder that even long-term occupation does not convert public land into private property, and that proper legal procedures must be followed to acquire rights over public lands.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Venus Batayola Baguio, et al. vs. Heirs of Ramon Abello, G.R. No. 192956, July 24, 2019