GR 168386; (March, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168386; March 29, 2010
LUCITA A. CANTOJA, Petitioner, vs. HARRY S. LIM, Respondent.
FACTS
The late Roberto Cantoja, Sr. was awarded a Foreshore Lease Agreement (FLA) by the DENR over a foreshore area in Makar, General Santos City, with a lease contract executed on November 23, 1990, expiring on October 21, 2015. Respondent Harry S. Lim filed a protest with the DENR, alleging that Cantoja committed fraud and misrepresentation in his application by declaring that the foreshore area adjoined his (Cantoja’s) property. Lim presented his Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8423 over Lot 2-B, which adjoins the foreshore area. After investigation, the DENR Regional Executive Director initially dismissed Lim’s protest, finding the leased foreshore area separate and distinct from Lim’s titled lot. However, upon Lim’s motion for reconsideration, DENR Secretary Antonio H. Cerilles, in a Decision dated May 2, 2000, reconsidered the earlier order and cancelled Cantoja’s FLA, ruling that Cantoja’s property did not adjoin the foreshore area; instead, Lim’s Lot 2-B was in between, meaning Cantoja would have no legal access without passing through Lim’s land. Secretary Cerilles later set aside this May 2, 2000 Order and reinstated the FLA in favor of Cantoja. The Office of the President affirmed the reinstatement. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on January 24, 2005, setting aside the Office of the President’s decision and reinstating the DENR Secretary’s May 2, 2000 decision cancelling the FLA.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in cancelling the Foreshore Lease Contract granted to Cantoja.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that it was undisputed that respondent Harry S. Lim was the registered owner of the land adjacent to the foreshore area, having acquired title prior to Cantoja’s lease application. A sketch plan confirmed that Lim’s property was situated between the foreshore land and Cantoja’s property. Therefore, Cantoja committed fraud and misrepresentation in his application by declaring that his properties adjoined the foreshore area, when in fact they did not. As the owner of the land adjoining the foreshore area, Lim was the riparian or littoral owner entitled to a preferential right to lease the foreshore land under paragraph 32 of Lands Administrative Order No. 7-1. The fraud committed by Cantoja was a valid ground for the cancellation or rescission of the Foreshore Lease Agreement under its stipulations.