GR 100709; (November, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100709 November 14, 1997
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSEFINA L. MORATO, SPOUSES NENITA CO and ANTONIO QUILATAN AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON PROVINCE, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Josefina L. Morato was granted Free Patent No. (IV-3) 275 over a 1,265-square meter parcel of land in Calauag, Quezon, on January 16, 1974, and Original Certificate of Title No. P-17789 was issued on February 4, 1974. The patent and title contained the condition under the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ) that the land shall not be alienated or encumbered within five years from the patent’s issuance. An investigation by the District Land Officer revealed that on October 24, 1974, Morato mortgaged a portion of the land to respondents Spouses Nenita Co and Antonio Quilatan for P10,000, upon which the spouses constructed a house. On February 2, 1976, Morato leased another portion to Perfecto Advincula at a monthly rent of P100, where a warehouse was built. The investigation also found the land to be a portion of Calauag Bay, underwater during high tide. The Republic, represented by the Director of Lands, filed a complaint for cancellation of title and reversion of the land to the public domain, alleging violations of the five-year prohibitory period and that the land was foreshore land. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling the mortgage covered only improvements and a lease was not an alienation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, prompting the Republic’s petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lease and mortgage of a portion of the land acquired through free patent within the five-year prohibitory period constitute sufficient ground for the nullification of the patent and title.
2. Whether the property, having been found to be foreshore land, should revert to the State.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the Court of Appeals Decision, and ordered the CANCELLATION of the patent and title, with the land REVERTING to the State.
1. Yes, the lease and mortgage violated the prohibitory conditions of the free patent. Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 prohibits any encumbrance or alienation of lands acquired under free patent for five years from the patent’s issuance. The Court ruled that a lease is an encumbrance and a mortgage is an alienation within the meaning of the law. The mortgage contract, which involved the land itself and not merely improvements, and the lease contract, executed within the five-year period, constituted clear violations. The indefeasibility of the title does not bar an action for reversion by the State when the grant was made in violation of law.
2. Yes, the land, being foreshore land, is part of the public domain and cannot be privately appropriated. Foreshore land is that part of the shore between the high and low water marks. The evidence established that the land was invaded by the sea, making it foreshore land. Such land is not alienable, and its registration under a free patent was void from the beginning. The subsequent conversion of the land into foreshore land caused it to pass back to the public domain.