G.R. No. L-6098, August 12, 1911
THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALDECOA AND COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The Insular Government filed a complaint for recovery of possession against the mercantile firm Aldecoa & Co. over two adjoining parcels of land in Surigao. The government alleged that the lands, with a total area of approximately 95 centares, were part of the public domain (formerly of the Spanish Government, now of the United States under its administration) and that the defendant had been occupying them illegally for about seventeen years, having constructed a wharf and warehouses thereon. The government further claimed that despite demands and an initial agreement by Aldecoa & Co. in 1903 to return the land, the defendant later refused to do so. Aldecoa & Co. claimed full and absolute ownership, asserting possession since 1889 by virtue of a verbal permit from the politico-military governor of Surigao. The trial court found the land to be public land formed by accretion from the sea, ordered its return to the government, and applied Article 361 of the Civil Code regarding improvements made in good faith.

ISSUE

Whether the parcels of land in question are part of the public domain and thus not susceptible to private appropriation or acquisition by prescription.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The land was determined to be of public domain, formed by the action of the sea (accretion) and constituting part of the shore line bordering the Pacific Ocean. As such, it was intended for public use. The Court held that lands of this character, belonging to the national domain and reserved for public uses, are not capable of private appropriation. No private person can acquire title to such land, except through express authorization granted in due form by competent authoritya requirement which Aldecoa & Co. failed to prove. The defendant’s claim of possession, even if begun under a supposed verbal permit, could not ripen into ownership. The Court distinguished this case from those involving mangrove-swamp or agricultural lands inundated by sea water, which might be subject to appropriation under certain laws. Since the defendant was found to have occupied the land in good faith, the provisions of Article 361 of the Civil Code, as applied by the trial court regarding indemnity for improvements, were deemed proper.