GR 149418; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149418 ; July 27, 2006
Spouses Pelagio Gulla and Perlita Gulla, petitioners, vs. Heirs of Alejandro Labrador, represented by Alex Labrador, respondents.
FACTS
The respondents, Heirs of Alejandro Labrador, filed an accion publiciana against the petitioners, Spouses Gulla, for recovery of possession of a 22,590-square-meter lot covered by OCT No. P-13350 and an adjacent 562-square-meter lot (Lot A) within a salvage or foreshore zone. The Gullas had occupied portions of both areas since 1996, constructing a house and fencing the perimeter. A verification survey confirmed that the Gullas occupied 820 sqm and 1,506 sqm within the titled property (Lots B and C), and the separate 562 sqm Lot A within the salvage zone. The Labradors asserted ownership over all occupied areas, including Lot A, claiming it as an accessory to their titled land under the principle of accession.
The Gullas claimed possession of Lot A since 1984 under a tax declaration and argued it was alienable public land, not owned by the Labradors. The MTC and RTC ruled for the Labradors, ordering the Gullas to vacate all occupied lots and pay rentals and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Article 440 of the Civil Code on accession to justify the Labradors’ possessory right over the salvage zone lot as an accessory to their titled property.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents, as owners of the adjoining titled property, have a cause of action to recover possession of the adjacent 562-square-meter foreshore land (Lot A) from the petitioners.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It affirmed the lower courts’ decision regarding Lots B and C, which are within the titled property of the Labradors. However, it reversed the ruling concerning Lot A, the 562-square-meter foreshore land.
The Court held that Article 440 of the Civil Code on accession does not apply to Lot A. Foreshore land, which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary tides, is part of the public domain. Such land is not susceptible to private ownership or possession unless the government officially classifies it as alienable and disposable and grants a specific permit or title to a private party. The Labradors presented no evidence of such a grant from the state. Consequently, they have no possessory right over the foreshore land and thus lack a cause of action to eject the Gullas from it. The real party-in-interest to recover possession of public foreshore land is the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General. The complaint was dismissed insofar as Lot A is concerned, without prejudice to action by the state, and the award of rentals and damages to the Labradors for Lot A was vacated.