(CENRO) at Barotac Viejo, Iloilo to report on the status of the

REPUBLIC vs. CA subject land considering that a discrepancy was noted after
plotting the land.[6]
DECISION
Thus, on March 6, 1995, the RTC issued an Order to the
CALLEJO, SR., J.: effect.[7]
On March 31, 1995, the RTC received a certification from
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
the Land Management Bureau, Department of Environment
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for
and Natural Resources (DENR), Manila stating that according
annulment of judgment filed before it by the petitioner.
to the verification of our records, this Office (formerly Bureau
The antecedent facts are as follows: of Lands) has no record of any kind of public land
application/land patent covering the parcel of land situated in
On June 22, 1994, respondent Angel T. Yu filed a Estancia, Iloilo, identified as Lot No. 524, Cad. 633-D, Ap-
petition[2] for registration of a parcel of land, designated as Lot 063019-005139, [8]
524, Cad. 633-D, Estancia Cadastre, Ap-063019-005139,
with an area of 1,194 square meters, more or less, situated at Based on this certification and after reception of evidence,
the Poblacion, Zone 1, Municipality of Estancia, Province of the RTC rendered judgment on May 3, 1995, the decretal
Iloilo. The case was docketed as LRC Case No.1000, LRA Rec. portion of which reads:
No. N-64463 and raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Sixth
Judicial Region, Iloilo City, Branch 37.[3] The petition was WHEREFORE, ratifying the Order of general default
later amended to include the adjoining lots and the previously entered in this case, and after considering the
corresponding owners name. evidence adduced and finding that petitioner Angel T. Yu had
sufficient title proper for the registration in his name of the
Initial hearing was scheduled on February 9, 1995 at 8:30 land subject of the application, JUDGMENT is hereby
a.m. For the purpose, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) rendered confirming the title of the applicant/petitioner
entered its appearance on January 18, 1995 and at the same ANGEL T. YU, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of
time deputized the City Prosecutor of Iloilo City to appear for Estancia, Iloilo, over a parcel of land (Lot 524, Cad. 633-D,
and in behalf of the Solicitor General under the latters Estancia Cadastre, AP-063019-005139) situated in the
supervision and control. Except for the opposition filed by the Poblacion Zone 1, Municipality of Estancia, Province of Iloilo,
Solicitor General, no one else appeared to oppose the Island of Panay, identified in the Plan, Exhibit E and
application/petition. The case was then set for reception of technically described in Exhibit F.
applicants evidence on February 16, 1995[4] which was again
set to another day.[5] As soon as this Decision becomes final, let an order for the
On February 22, 1995, the RTC received a letter from the issuance of the permanent decree and the corresponding
Land Registration Authority (LRA) requesting the court to certificate of title be issued in accordance with law.[9]
require the Land Management Bureau, Manila and the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
 No motion for reconsideration was filed by the City in a cover memorandum dated September 24, 1994, duly
Prosecutor on behalf of the Solicitor General. Hence, the said endorsed by the CENR Officer of CENRO, Sara, Iloilo, Edgardo
decision became final and executory on June 14, 1995, and J. Himatay.
entry of judgment was duly made on July 7, 1995. An order
was consequently issued by the RTC directing the issuance of This supplementary report of the undersigned is prepared
the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title with the request that the additional findings be made on
to respondent Angel T. Yu.[10] record when the undersigned repaired on the premises of the
land on April 7, 1995, in the morning to conduct an ocular
On May 29, 1995,[11] the OSG received a copy of the
inspection. The following facts were ascertained and found;
supplementary report and findings of Land Management
Officer Myra B. Rosal dated April 12, 1995 (Rosal Report),
1. [That] the Cadastral lot in question and subject
which was submitted to the trial court in compliance with the
of a Land Registration Case at bar, is Lot 524,
courts Order dated March 6, 1995. The report was worded,
Cad 633-D, Estancia Cadastre, containing an
thus:
area of 1,194 square meters, approved on
The Honorable Judge October 21, 1980, located at Zone 1, Poblacion
JOSE AZARRAGA Estancia, Iloilo. Again, Engr. Rogelio Santome,
Regional Trial Court adopting the cadastral survey of the then
Sixth Judicial Region Bureau of Lands, prepared an Advance Plan
Branch 37, Iloilo City and subsequently approved as Ap-063019-
005139 on May 25, 1994.
April 12, 1995
2. That Lot No. 524, Cad-633-D is covered by a
Foreshore Lease Application (FLA No. (VI-I)78)
SUBJECT: LAND REGISTRATION CASE
applied for by Angel Tilos Yu on July 1, 1977,
NO.
with the then Bureau of Lands, MNR, Ministry
N-1000 LOT NO. 524, CAD,
of Natural Resources, NRD (VI-7) Barotac
CAD-633-D, ESTANCIA
Viejo, duly ratified by Land Investigator
CADASTRE
Antonio L. Luis. An amount of P775.00 each
ANGEL TILOS YU APPLICANT
had been paid in the year 1982 and the year
1983, (please see certification hereto attached)
___________________________________
dated February 6, 1995, of CENR Officer
Edgardo J. Himatay.
In compliance with the Order of March 6, 1995, received by
this Office on March 15, 1995, attached for your ready 3. That Lot No. 524, Cad-633-D is declared public
reference is the amended report in three (3) pages of Land land and is Alienable and Disposable per L.C.
Management Officer III Fabio O. Catalan, Jr., of this Office, Map 1020, Project 44 dated July 26, 1933.
which was sent to Office of the Regional Technical Director,
Land Management Bureau, DENR Masonic Temple, Iloilo City,
 4. That the improvements found on the land are as case, and it was found that there were grounds for opposition
follows: to the respondents land application. Land Investigator Fabio
O. Catalan, Jr., who conducted an ocular inspection of the
a) A commercial complex built of strong
subject land, found the same to be a reclaimed foreshore
materials (concrete steel and galvanized
area. Attached therein was the Amended Report of Land
iron with 18-20 feet structure in depth,
Investigator Catalan, Jr.(Catalan Report);[13] the 1977
as foundation of the building, occupying
Foreshore Lease Application of Angel T. Yu;[14] the November
around 600 square meters of the whole
16, 1983 Visitation and Examination Report of Land
area of Lot 524. The building itself
Investigator Antonio L. Luis over Lot No. 524;[15] and a
houses 14 commercial concrete stalls of
blueprint plan of Lot 524 (formerly Lot 2) of the Estancia
14 x 5 meters which is offered for rent
Cadastre.[16]
as boutiques and dry goods stalls.
After discovering the actual status of Lot 524, the
b) On the second floor now undergoing are
Republic filed a petition for the annulment of judgment with a
bowling lanes (6 alleys) for recreational
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction with the Court of
purposes which will soon open to the
Appeals on July 20, 1995.[17]
public in 3 months time.
On February 5, 1996, respondent Angel T. Yu filed a
5. That Lot No. 524, Cad-633-D is not an
motion with the CA, praying that he be allowed to submit to
agricultural land. That out of the total area of
the Land Registration Authority the corrected technical
1,194 square meters, only around 850 square
description and the republication in the Official Gazette of the
meters is dry land and that an area of 334 sq.
corrected technical description of Plan Ap-063019, Lot 524,
meters which used to be covered and
Cad. 633-D dated January 15, 1996.[18] The OSG filed its
uncovered by water during high tide is now a
objection thereto.[19]
reclaimed area, since way back 1977 when
applicant Angel Tilos Yu applied for a On September 10, 1996, the Court of Appeals dismissed
Foreshore Lease Application with [the] then the petition for annulment of judgment. It also ruled that
Bureau of Lands. since the RTC decision had already become final and
executory, the technical description could no longer be
Respectf
modified to include the increased area as prayed for by the
ully submitted,
private respondent. The CA held as follows:
(sig
ned)
Lot 524 is not a foreshore land..
MYRA B.
ROSAL[12]
The CENRO report is proof that Lot 524, Cad-633-D, is an
On June 22, 1995, the OSG received a letter from agricultural land. Out of the total area of 1,194 square
Regional Executive Director Jose P. Catus of the DENR, meters, around 850 square meters is dry land. That an area of
stating that an investigation was conducted on the instant 334 sq. meters which used to be covered and uncovered by
water during high tide is now a reclaimed area, since way protect its interests and can not be bound by, or estopped
back 1977.(underlining supplied) from, the mistakes or negligent acts of its officials or agents,
much more, non-suited as a result thereof. As held
WHEREFORE, the petition for annulment of judgment is in Republic vs. Alagad:[25]
hereby DISMISSED. The motion of private respondent dated
January 15, 1996 is DENIED.[20] [T]he state as a persona in law is the judicial entity, which is
the source of any asserted right to ownership in land under
Finding no relief from the CA, the Republic filed the the basic doctrine embodied in the 1935 Constitution as well
instant petition, raising the issue that: as the present charter. It is charged moreover with the
conservation of such patrimony. There is need therefore of the
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE most rigorous scrutiny before private claims to portions
REPUBLICS PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT ON thereof are judicially accorded recognition, especially so where
THE MERE SUPPOSITION THAT LOT 524 IS NOT the matter is sought to be raked up anew after almost fifty
FORESHORE LAND, BUT AGRICULTURAL LAND.[21] years. Such primordial consideration, not the apparent
carelessness, much less the acquiescence of public officials, is
We find merit in the petition. the controlling norm
At the outset, there is a need to take a closer look at the
The Catalan Report, which states that the subject land is
true nature of the land in question.
foreshore land, was received by the OSG only on June 22,
The petitioner asserts that Lot 524 is foreshore land. 1995, long after the RTC rendered its judgment on May 3,
1995. Angel T. Yu had, in fact, filed a foreshore lease
Foreshore land is that strip of land that lies between the
application in 1977 and paid the corresponding fees
high and low water marks and is alternatively wet and dry
thereon. There is, therefore, doubt to the respondents claim
according to the flow of tide. It is that part of the land
that he had been in actual, open, notorious, continuous
adjacent to the sea, which is alternately covered and left dry
possession , in the concept of an owner.
by the ordinary flow of tides.[22] It is part of the alienable land
of the public domain and may be disposed of only by lease Moreover, the Rosal Report dated April 12, 1995 was
and not otherwise.[23]Foreshore land remains part of the received by the OSG only on May 29, 1995. Although the
public domain and is outside the commerce of man. It is not report states that Lot No. 524, Cad-633-D is declared public
capable of private appropriation.[24] land and is alienable and disposable per L.C. Map 1020,
Project 44 dated July 26, 1933, the same report buttresses
It is for this reason that the petitioner persists in its action
the contention that the subject land is foreshore land and
to revert the subject land to the State. Thus, even if the
covered by a foreshore lease application filed by Angel T.
decision of the RTC has become final and executory, we find
Yu. Finding the reports to be revealing and significant as to
that the respondent court abused its discretion in dismissing
the real status of the land being foreshore, the petitioner lost
the petition for annulment of judgment filed before it which is
no time in filing the petition for annulment of judgment with
impressed with public interest. There are valid and
the Court of Appeals.
meritorious grounds to justify such action. The State has to
 We can not fault the trial court for not having considered is not a trier of facts. Thus, for a proper and conclusive
in its decision the Rosal Report dated April 12, 1995 which classification of the land involved, the instant case has to be
was apparently submitted to it. On March 15, 1995, the trial remanded to the trial court for that determination.[31]
court issued an order where it considered the case submitted
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decisions of
for decision upon the submission to this court by the Land
the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court
Management Bureau, Manila and CENRO, Barotac Viejo,
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to
Iloilo of the report as directed in the Order of this Court dated
the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Branch 37 for further
March 6, 1995, and after the Land Management Sector,
proceedings.
Region 6, Iloilo City had duly verified the discrepancy of plan
Ap-063019-005139 of the subject land applied for.[26] In SO ORDERED.
compliance with the order, the trial court received a
certification from the Land Management Bureau that the
office has no record of any kind of public land
application/land patent covering the parcel of land[27] and
thereby approved the registration of the land in favor of
respondent. The records reveal that the Rosal Report, through
a 1stIndorsement dated April 24, 1995, was received by the
RTC only on May 5, 1995,[28] after the court had already
rendered its decision on May 3, 1995. No motion for
reconsideration was filed to controvert the said decision based
on the report. The OSGs receipt of the Rosal and Catalan
Reports on the status of the land were also belated through
no fault of theirs.
Finally, we can not uphold the respondent courts finding
regarding the character of the land. The Rosal Report clearly
states that the subject land is not an agricultural land. Despite
such declaration, the respondent court continued to rule that
the subject land is agricultural on the basis that out of the
total area of 1,194 square meters, 850 square meters is dry
land and that 334 square meters is now a reclaimed area.[29]
Clearly, there is a need to determine once and for all
whether the subject land is really foreshore land and/or
whether the respondent has registerable title thereto. The
classification of public lands is a function of the executive
branch of government, specifically, the director of lands (now
the director of the Land Management Bureau).[30] This Court