G.R. No. L-6019, March 25, 1911
JUAN N. ARAGON, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Juan N. Aragon applied for the registration of a small parcel of land in Manila under the Land Registration Act. The Insular Government opposed, claiming the land was part of the public domain, specifically the “shore” (playa) as defined in Article 339 of the Civil Code and the Law of Waters of 1886, because it was completely covered by the waters of Manila Bay at high tide and left bare at low tide. Evidence showed that the land had a registered possessory title since 1892 in favor of Aragon’s predecessor, Inocencio Aragon. The applicants and their predecessors had long, undisputed possession, with a house once standing on the lot. The land was in a valuable residential area, and with minimal filling or a retaining wall, it could be usable again. Adjoining lots were similarly situated but protected by retaining walls. There was reason to believe the land was originally above the tide line and had become submerged due to changes in the bay or land subsidence, not abandonment.

ISSUE

Whether the land, which is covered by sea water at high tide, is part of the public domain (shore) or remains private property owned by the applicants.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decree, ordering the registration of the land in favor of Aragon. The Court held that the applicants had not lost their right of ownership or possession. While the land met the physical definition of a “shore” under the Law of Waters, the applicants never abandoned it, and the property was not totally destroyed. The erosion or encroachment by the sea was gradual, and the land could still be reclaimed for use with minor improvements. Under Articles 446 and 460 of the Civil Code, possession is lost only by abandonment, transfer, total destruction, or adverse possession for over a yearnone of which applied here. The government’s claim that the land had become public domain was therefore untenable. The decision clarified that private property may become public shore only if the owner abandons it and allows its total destruction, which was not the case.