GR No.

46373 January 29, 1940

CARLOS PALANCA vs COMMONWEALTH

Facts:
On July 17, 1919, Carlos Palanca obtained a ruling for the registration of four parcels of land,
contiguous to each other and separated only from each other by certain waterways called
estuaries. Before that, the government, through the Attorney General, presented a request to
reopen the trial to prove the existence of estuaries and navigable rivers within the land, in order to
fix the situation. The petition was denied because it was considered as unnecessary to reopen the
case for such purpose, because even on the ground, the registration of it would not affect the
property rights of the government or the public use of said communication channels.

An action was filed against Palanca alleging that he is illegally occupying portions of the Viray River
and the Sapang Sedaria Estuary, which are navigable, and asks that he be forced to open them,
leaving them in their primitive state. The Court of Appeals declared that said Rio Viray and Estero
Sapang Sedaria are of public domain and use and that the right acquired by Palanca over the land in
which they are located cannot affect the State right over them, as goods intended for public use.
They they serve as communication between two water courses, which flow into the Bay of Manila,
and that the water currents in them are public domain and use, useful for trade, navigation and
fishing and already had these conditions when the property that comprises them still belonged to
the State.

Issue:
Whether or not the Torrens title issued to Palanca was valid.

Ruling:
The Court did not find the appellant's claim that the decision ruled and the Torrens title issued,
consequently, in favor of Palanca, established the non-existence of the river and estuary in question
as navigable. In that decision, although it was said that the land was crossed by certain waterways
called estuaries, there is no statement that these estuaries were not navigable. On the other hand,
when the government requested the opportunity to prove that some of these estuaries were
navigable, the Court denied the opportunity for the reason that, if they were in fact navigable, the
government's right to them, by reason of such condition of the Viray River and the Sapang Sedaria
Estuary, has not been subject to a judicial decision.

For the rest, since the river and estuary are navigable, useful for commerce, navigation and fishing,
they classify under public domain and their legal status in that sense had not been affected by the
possession of Carlos Palanca since there is no prescription against the State on public property.