G.R. No. 72486 ; June 19, 1991
MAXIMO SOLIS, ISRAEL LOMBAB, JAIME PONS, ARSENIO SOLISON, and PERCIVAL ARCHISALES, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, JUANITO GUIRIT AND RUSTICO CARMEN, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a 1,200-square-meter parcel of land adjacent to a coconut land owned by respondent Juanito Guirit. The land was formerly occupied and cultivated by Guirit’s son-in-law, Rustico Carmen, until erosion from 1964-1970 submerged it. In 1971, waste materials dumped by a company filled the area, and Carmen reoccupied it, fencing the land and planting crops. He later filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application for the land. Petitioners, with the permission of Guirit and Carmen, built houses on portions of the land between 1976 and 1977, agreeing to pay rentals. However, they later filed a protest against Carmen’s sales application, claiming the land was public domain but did not file their own application.
Private respondents Guirit and Carmen filed an action for recovery of ownership and/or possession in the Court of First Instance. They anchored their claim on the doctrine of accretion, citing Lanzar v. Director of Lands, arguing that the land, formed by action of the sea and no longer needed for public use, should accrue to them as adjacent owners. Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the land was public domain and jurisdiction belonged exclusively to the Director of Lands under the Public Land Act.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession, and if so, which party had a better right to possess the disputed public land pending the Bureau of Lands’ adjudication of the sales application.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision with modification. The trial court correctly assumed jurisdiction. While the classification and disposition of public lands is an executive function vested in the Director of Lands, courts retain jurisdiction to determine the issue of possession de facto or physical possession. The pending sales application before the Bureau of Lands did not divest the court of its authority to adjudicate who had a better right of possession among the parties contesting the same.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that private respondents Guirit and Carmen had the preferential right of possession. They had continuously and peacefully occupied and cultivated the land since 1973. Petitioners entered and built houses only by mere tolerance of the respondents. Equity and law dictate protecting the prior possessors. However, the Court modified the lower court’s decision by deleting its request for the Bureau of Lands to apply the Lanzar ruling on accretion. Whether the land was formed by natural accretion or human-made reclamation is a factual determination for the Director of Lands to make in the pending sales application proceedings. The grant of possession to respondents is without prejudice to the Director of Lands’ ultimate decision on the application.