648 Phil. 468
CARPIO, J.:
WRITTEN REPORT
Comes now, the undersigned Geodetic Engineer Jorge S. Suasin, Sr., to this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit the following written report of the verification and relocation survey of the lot 6278-M located at Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental with T.C.T. No. T-11397 owned by Salvacion G. Kwan, et al.
A. That a big portion of the lot is submerged under the sea and only a small portion remain as dry land.
B. That some of the defendants have constructed their buildings or houses inside the dry land while others have constructed outside or only a small portion of their buildings or houses are on the said dry land.
The defendants and their buildings or houses are as follows:
- Sps. Rogelio Duran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. Romulo Vinalver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. Marto Bati-on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. Salvador Palongpalong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. Pablo Deciar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. Sabas Kiskis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .inside
- Sps. Pio Tubat, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 houses,
the first house a portion, and the second one - inside- Sps. Andres Tubat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. George Tubat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . portion
- Sps. Dodong Go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. Delano Bangay-Almagro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . portion
- Sps. Simeon Pachoro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. Cipriano Tubat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. Jovito Remolano . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside
- Sps. Nelson Miravalles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cottage and house - outside
- Monica Orlina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cottage inside and house - portion
- Clarita Barot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . outside
- Conchita Orlina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . outside
- Antonia Malahay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . outside
The verification and relocation survey was executed last September 12-13, 2000 with the presence of both parties and of the Clerk of Court. The cost of the survey was FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000) shouldered by the plaintiffs and the defendants equally.
Enclosed are a blue print of the sketch plan and a xerox copy of the land title of the said lot.Respectfully submitted by:
(Sgd) JORGE SUASIN, SR.
Geodetic Engineer[10]
The term "foreshore" refers to that part of the land adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the tides. "Foreshore lands" refers to the strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and that is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide. The term "foreshore land" clearly does not include submerged lands.
From these definitions, it is safe to conclude that the remaining dry portion of Lot No. 6278-M is now "foreshore land." A big portion of the said lot is presently underwater or submerged under the sea. When the sea moves towards the estate and the tide invades it, the invaded property becomes foreshore land and passes to the realm of public domain. The subject land, being foreshore land, should therefore be returned to the public domain. Besides, Article 420 of the Civil Code provides:"Art. 420. The following thin[g]s are property of public dominion:Plaintiff cannot use the doctrine of indefeasibility of their Torrens title, as property in question is clearly foreshore land. At the time of its registration, property was along the shores. In fact, it is bounded by the Tañon Strait on the NW along lines 2-3-4. The property was of public dominion and should not have been subject of registration. The survey showed that the sea had advanced and the waves permanently invaded a big portion of the property making the land part of the shore or the beach. The remaining dry land is foreshore and therefore should be returned to the public domain.[11]
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;
It is the Court's considered view that the small portion of plaintiff's property which remains as dry land is not within the scope of the well-settled definition of foreshore and foreshore land as mentioned above. For one thing, the small dry portion is not adjacent to the sea as the term adjacent as defined in Webster's Dictionary means "contiguous or touching one another or lying next to." Secondly, the small dry portion is not alternately wet and dry by the ordinary flow of the tides as it is dry land. Granting, as posited by defendants, that at certain times of the year, said dry portion is reached by the waves, then that is not anymore caused by the ordinary flow of the tide as contemplated in the above definition. The Court then finds that the testimony of Engr. Suasin dovetails with the import and meaning of foreshore and foreshore land as defined above.
Anent the case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 639, also cited in the appealed judgment, the same has a different factual milieu. Said case involves a holder of a free patent on a parcel of land situated at Pinagtalleran, Caluag, Quezon who mortgaged and leased portions thereof within the prescribed five-year period from the date of issuance of the patent. It was established in said case that the land subject of the free patent is five (5) to six (6) feet deep under water during high tide and two (2) feet deep at low tide. Such is not the situation of the "remaining small dry portion" which plaintiffs seek to recover in the case at bar.[13]
WHEREFORE, all told and circumspectly considered, the appealed judgment is hereby reversed and set aside insofar as it states that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of the property in question.
Plaintiffs-appellants have the right to recover possession of the remaining small dry portion of the subject property in question. It is further ordered to remand this case to the court of origin for the reception of further evidence to determine who among the defendants-appellees are builders or possessors in good faith and who are not and once determined, to apply accordingly the pertinent laws and jurisprudence on the matter.
SO ORDERED.[15]
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions for review are DENIED. And the Decision dated January 8, 2002 of Branch 38 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as regards the dispositive portion only. Based on the written report of Geodetic Engr. Suasin categorically indentifying who among herein petitioners are illegally occupying a portion of Lot No. 6278-M, the following petitioners are ordered to vacate the premises and/or remove the houses and/or cottages constructed on Lot No. 6278-M within thirty (30) days from finality of judgment, namely: 1)Sps. Rogelio Duran, 2) Sps. Romulo Vinalver, 3) Sps. Marto Bati-on, 4) Sps. Salvador Palongpalong, 5) Sps. Pablo Deciar, 6) Sps. Sabas Kiskis, 7) Sps. Pio Tubat, Jr. (first house - portion, second house- inside), 8) Sps. Andres Tubat, 9) George Tubat (portion), 10) Sps. Dodong Go, 11) Sps. Delano Bangay-Almagro (portion), 12) Sps. Simeon Pachoro, 13) Sps. Cipriano Tubat, 14) Sps. Jovito Remolano and 15) Monica Orlina (cottage-inside and house- portion).
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.[18]
Lastly, the argument that the RTC decision was "vague and indefinite" is utterly bereft of merit. We have found no reversible error in the appreciation of the facts and in the application of the law by the RTC which will warrant the reversal of the questioned decision. However, litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to the administration of justice that the issues or causes therein should be laid to rest. Hence, in keeping with this principle, We modify the assailed decision insofar as the dispositive portion is concerned. It is our considered view that there is no longer a need to determine who among the petitioners are builders in good faith or not considering that it has been established in the MTC that they knew all along that the subject lot is a titled property. As such, petitioners should vacate and/or demolish the houses and/or cottages they constructed on Lot No. 6278-M as stated in the written report of Geodetic Engineer Jorge S. Suasin, Sr. Remanding this case to the court of origin would not only unduly prolong the resolution of the issues of this case, but would also subject the parties to unnecessary expenses.[19]
Defendants-appellees have been harping that they have been granted foreshore leases by DENR. However, this is merely lip service and not supported at all by concrete evidence. Not even an iota of evidence was submitted to the lower court to show that defendants-appellees herein have been granted foreshore leases.[20]