G.R. No. L-9128; November 28, 1914
EVARISTO FRANCISCO, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL., opponents-appellants.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE CITY OF MANILA, objector-appellant. EVARISTO FRANCISCO, objector-appellee.

FACTS:
Evaristo Francisco applied for registration of a 546.50-square-meter parcel of land (designated as parcel No. 3/lot X) in Ermita, Manila, as part of a larger tract totaling 2,039 square meters. He claimed ownership through purchase from Luis Javier, who allegedly acquired it from Pedro Carbonel around 1894. Francisco asserted that Carbonel had occupied and possessed the land since 18781880, building houses and collecting rent from tenants. However, Francisco presented no documentary evidence to support the chain of title, relying solely on testimonial evidence from Javier and others.

The Insular Government and the City of Manila opposed the registration, contending that the land was part of the public domainspecifically, the shore (playa) of Manila Bay. They presented evidence showing that the parcel was covered by seawater at high tide and uncovered at low tide until the construction of Cavite Boulevard. A Spanish map from 1895 indicated the land was within Manila Bay’s confines. Additionally, adjacent landowners had built retaining walls in the late 19th century to protect their properties from wave action, suggesting the disputed area was subject to tidal influence. The City of Manila also claimed the land, having purchased the Insular Government’s rights to it in 1910.

The Court of Land Registration originally decreed registration in favor of Francisco. Both the Insular Government and the City of Manila appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the disputed parcel of land forms part of the public domain (specifically, the shore of Manila Bay) and is thus incapable of private appropriation, or whether Evaristo Francisco has sufficiently proven ownership through acquisitive prescription.

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Court of Land Registration and DECREED the registration of the land in favor of the City of Manila.

The Court held that the land in question is part of the public domain. Under Article 339 of the Civil Code and the Law of Waters of 1866, shoresdefined as the space alternately covered and uncovered by the tidesare property of public ownership. The evidence established that the parcel was covered by the waters of Manila Bay at high tide and exposed at low tide until the construction of Cavite Boulevard, placing it within the legal definition of a shore.

Francisco’s claim of ownership through adverse possession failed due to insufficient evidence. The testimonies of his witnesses were weak, contradictory, and uncorroborated by any documentary proof. Notably, the alleged deed of sale from Carbonel to Javier was lost under unexplained circumstances. In contrast, the government’s evidenceincluding the 1895 Spanish map, the construction of retaining walls by adjacent owners in the late 19th century, and the lack of any occupancy or possession since 1900convincingly demonstrated that the land was part of the bay’s shoreline and had never been legitimately privatized.

The Court distinguished this case from Aragon v. Insular Government, where registration was granted based on a registered possessory title and long, undisputed possession. Here, no such title or continuous possession was proven. Since the land remained part of the public domain and the Insular Government had validly sold its rights to the City of Manila under Act No. 1890, the City was entitled to registration.

Arellano, C.J., and Torres, J., dissented without opinion.