GR L 20300 01; (April, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20300-01 and L-20355-56; April 30, 1965.
Case Parties:
ANTONINO DIZON, ADELAIDA D. REYES, CONSOLACION DEGOLLACION, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, as Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources, HERACLITO MONTALBAN, as Acting Director of Fisheries, MIGUEL TOLENTINO, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., respondents.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, MIGUEL TOLENTINO, and CLEMENCIA TOLENTINO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONINO DIZON, ADELAIDA D. REYES, CONSOLACION DE DEGOLLACION, ARTEMIO DIZON, AMORANDO DIZON, REMEDIOS MANAPAT SY-JUCO, and LEONILA SIOCHI GOCO, respondents.
FACTS
Hacienda Calatagan, owned by Alfonso and Jacobo Zobel and covered by TCT No. T-722, had a pier (“Santiago Landing”) extending about 600 meters into Pagaspas Bay. After the sugar mill ceased operations in 1948, the owners converted the pier into a fishpond dike and enclosed adjacent areas of the bay (about 30 and 37 hectares) to create two fishponds. In 1949, a subdivision plan (Psd-27941) was prepared, designating these fishponds as Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 49. The plan was approved by the Director of Lands, and TCT No. 2739 was issued for these lots to Jacobo Zobel. These lots were subsequently sold to Antonino Dizon, et al. (Lot 49) and Carlos Goco, et al./Manuel Sy-Juco, et al. (Lot 1), who obtained corresponding transfer certificates of title.
Miguel Tolentino and his daughter Clemencia later applied for fishpond permits for these lots with the Bureau of Fisheries. The Dizons, Sy-Jucos, and Gocos protested, claiming the lots were private land. The Director of Fisheries dismissed the protest, finding the areas outside the hacienda’s boundaries. This finding was based on a committee report created by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The protestants’ court action to restrain the permit issuance was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Their subsequent administrative appeal was dismissed as out of time.
The Dizons, Sy-Jucos, and Gocos then filed suits in the Batangas Court of First Instance to quiet title. The Republic of the Philippines intervened, asserting the lots were part of the foreshore. The trial court found the subdivision plan disregarded the technical description in the original title, that the lots were part of the foreshore, declared the petitioners’ titles null and void, and pronounced the lots as public domain. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the lots were foreshore land and cancelled the titles. It also declared the petitioners (Dizon, et al.) possessors in good faith, entitled to retain the properties until reimbursed by the Republic for necessary expenses (P40,000 for Lot 49 and P25,000 for Lot 1). The Republic and the Tolentinos appealed, arguing the possessors were in bad faith after the denial of their protest by the Director of Fisheries and thus not entitled to reimbursement. The Dizons, et al. also appealed, contesting the finding that the lots were foreshore.
ISSUE
1. Whether Lots 1 and 49 are part of the foreshore and therefore public domain.
2. Whether the petitioners (Dizon, et al.) are possessors in good faith entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses from the Republic.
RULING
1. Yes, the lots are part of the foreshore and public domain. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts. The existence of a 600-meter pier jutting into the sea indicated the area was part of the sea or foreshore. The fishponds were constructed by enclosing these areas with dikes. The subdivision plan (Psd-27941) was prepared in disregard of the technical description in the original TCT No. T-722. Therefore, the lots were part of the territorial waters belonging to the State. The indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply to land not capable of registration.
2. Yes, the petitioners are possessors in good faith entitled to reimbursement. The Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ reasoning. As purchasers in good faith who relied on their Torrens titles, their possession remained in good faith until their titles were declared null and void by final judgment. A mistake on a difficult question of law (such as the validity of a Torrens title) can be the basis of good faith. The Republic’s voluntary intervention in the case submitted it to the court’s jurisdiction, making the reimbursement order valid. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in all respects.