Republic v. Alagad[G.R. No. 66807. January 26, 1989.]Topic: Non-Registrable Properties (Properties of Public Dominion)Facts:On Oct. 11, 1951, Melitona, Carmen (with spouse Espiridion Kolimlim), Justo, Carlos, Librada (with spouse Emerson Abano), Demetrio, and Antonio Alagad filed an application for registration of their title over a parcel of land situated at Linga, Pila, Laguna, with an area of 8.1263 hectares, which was amended after the land was divided into two parcels, namely, Lot 1 withan area of 5.2476 hectares and Lot 2 with an area of 2.8421 hectares. The Republic opposed the application on the stereo-typed ground that applicants and their predecessors have not been in possession of the land openly, continuously, publicly and adverselyunder a bona fide claim of ownership since July 26, 1894 and the land has not ceased to be a part of the public domain. It appearsthat barrio folk also opposed the application. On 16 January 1956, by virtue of a final judgment in said case, supplemented by orders issued on March 21, 1956 and Aug. 13, 1956, the Alagads were declared owners of Lot 1 and the remaining portion, or Lot2, was declared public land. In August 1966, the Alagads filed before the Municipal Court of Pila, Laguna an action to evict the barrio folk occupying portions of Lot 1. On 8 August 1968, judgment was rendered in the eviction case ordering the barrio folk therein to return possession of the premises to the Alagads. The barrio folk did not appeal.The Republic filed a petition for “annulment of title and reversion, insofar as the 1.42 hectare northwestern portion on end of Lot 1 is concerned, contending that such is foreshore land, and that the Alagads could not have had an imperfect title to it as it was the barrio folk who filled up the land to elevate the land to its present condition. The Court, issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the Provincial Sheriff of Laguna or his deputies from enforcing a writ of execution, and the Alagads from selling, mortgaging, disposing or otherwise entering into any transaction affecting the area. The case was set for pre-trial on July 6, 1971, to which the attorney representing the Republic did not appear. On July 16, 1971, the court dismissed the complaint. TheRepublic filed a motion for reconsideration, was set for hearing, and finally denied by the court. Appeal was made to the Court of Appeals, which sustained the trial court for failure to show in the record on appeal that the appeal was perfected on time. Hence, the appeal.The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower courts, and reinstated the Republic’s complaint and thus remanded the caseto the trial court for further proceedings.Issue:Whether or not a property of public dominion is capable of appropriation?Held:1. Property of public dominion: Property for public use or public service"Property", according to the Civil Code, "is either of public dominion or of private ownership." Property is of public dominion if it is (1) intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores,
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 7 pages?
- Spring '17
- Ehva linc