Case Digest (G.R. No. 175806 175810)
Facts:
The case involves two consolidated petitions for review, G.R. Nos. 175806 and 175810, filed by Manuel Almagro and his spouse, Elizabeth Almagro, against respondents Salvacion C. Kwan, William C. Kwan, Victoria C. Kwan, assisted by her husband Jose A. Arbas, and Cecilia C. Kwan. The events leading to this case began with the death of Kwan Chin and Zosima Sarana, the parents of the respondents, who died intestate on November 2, 1986, and January 23, 1976, respectively, in Dumaguete City. The respondents inherited a 17,181 square meter parcel of land known as Lot No. 6278-M, covered by TCT No. T-11397, located in Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental. On September 18, 1996, the respondents filed an action for recovery of possession and damages against various defendants, including the Almagros, who intervened as successors-in-interest of other defendants. During pre-trial, the parties agreed to refer the case to the Chief of the Land Management Services Division, PENRO-DENR, for a ve...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 175806 175810)
Facts:
Ownership and Inheritance
- Lot No. 6278-M, a 17,181 square meter parcel of land located in Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, is covered by TCT No. T-11397 and registered in the name of spouses Kwan Chin and Zosima Sarana.
- Upon the death of Kwan Chin (2 November 1986) and Zosima Sarana (23 January 1976), their legitimate children (respondents) inherited the property through hereditary succession.
Legal Action
- On 18 September 1996, respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against several individuals (petitioners) who had constructed houses or buildings on the property.
- Spouses Manuel and Elizabeth Almagro intervened as successors-in-interest of spouses Delano and Maria Bangay.
Survey and Findings
- The parties agreed to refer the case to Geodetic Engineer Jorge Suasin, Sr. for a verification and relocation survey of Lot No. 6278-M.
- Engr. Suasin’s report revealed:
- A large portion of the lot is submerged under the sea, with only a small portion remaining as dry land.
- Some petitioners had constructed buildings or houses inside the dry land, while others had structures partially or entirely outside the dry land.
MTC Ruling
- The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the complaint, ruling that the remaining dry portion of Lot No. 6278-M had become foreshore land and should be returned to the public domain.
RTC Ruling
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC decision, finding that the disputed portion of Lot No. 6278-M was not foreshore land. The RTC observed that the dry land remained dry even during high tide.
- The RTC ordered the case remanded to the MTC to determine which petitioners were builders in good faith.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modification, ordering specific petitioners to vacate the premises and remove their structures within 30 days from the finality of the judgment.
Issue:
- Whether the disputed portion of Lot No. 6278-M is still private land or has become foreshore land, which forms part of the public domain.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)