Baguio v.

Heirs of Abello
(July 24, 2019)

A.B. REYES, 1) Action for reversion vs. action for nullity of title
JR., J. 2) Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act; Foreshore lands

Doctrine: 1) The SolGen need not be a party in actions for nullity of title.
2) Foreshore lands cannot be disposed of through a free patent application. The appropriate
application is a foreshore lease application after the President opens the land to disposition.

Facts Land adjacent to the shoreline of Bantayan Island was being contested:

The heirs of Abello claim a 30,000 sq.m. parcel. They have never possessed
the property but have an OCT dated 1967 from the free patent (FP) of their
predecessor-in-interest. This FP is based on Bureau of Land Report 1,
classifying the land as agricultural land with coconut trees.

The Batayola group claim 16,000 sq.m. within Abellos’ alleged land. They
occupied and possessed the property since 1947 and obtained their OCTs from
an FP and a successful sales patent application. This FP is based on Bureau of
Land Report 2, classifying the land as foreshore land gradually filled by the
Batayola group to avoid being submerged by the high tide.

The Bureau of Lands and RTC awarded ownership back and forth between the
parties, but the CA voided both titles since the land was not shown to be
alienable and disposable. Hence this appeal.

Issue Procedural: W/N the SolGen was required to be a party to the suits - NO
Substantive: W/N the disputed lands are alienable and disposable - NO

Ruling 1) In an action for reversion, the complaint must allege State ownership of the
disputed land. The only entity entitled to relief is the Director of Lands. Thus,
under §101 of the Public Land Act, an action for reversion must be instituted
by the SolGen.

Whereas in an action for declaration of nullity (of free patent and certificate of
title), the complaint must (i) allege plaintiff's ownership of the contested lot
prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title, and (ii) the
defendant's fraud or mistake. Thus the real party in interest is not the State but
the plaintiff who alleges the pre-existing right of ownership.

Here, both petitions were actions for nullity of either party’s title. Thus the
absence of the SolGen as a party was not fatale.

2) Foreshore lands are those lands adjacent to the sea or immediately in front
of the shore, lying between the high and low water marks and alternately
covered with water and left dry according to the ordinary flow of the tides.

According to DENR Report 2 and witness testimony, the high tide reached the
huts of the Batayola group. Thus the land is foreshore lands.
§§58, 59, and 61 of the Public Land Act state that foreshore lands are
disposable land of the public domain. They must first be opened to disposition
or concession by the President, and may only be disposed of through lease and
not otherwise. The appropriate application is a foreshore lease application.

Here, there is no evidence that the land was either alienable and disposable or
agricultural. Also, both groups filed for `FPs, not foreshore lease applications.
Thus, the FPs and OCTs of both groups should be considered null and void.
Both petitions denied.