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...

Facts:

Consolidation and Parties

• The case consolidated two separate petitions for review:
• Petition by Manuel Almagro and his spouse, Elizabeth Almagro.
• Petition by Margarita Pachoro, Dronica Orlina, Pio Tubat, Jr., Andres Tubat, Eduvigis Kiskis, Elsa Biaalber, Noela Tubat, Elsa Tubat, and Rogelio Duran.
• Respondents are the legitimate children of Kwan Chin and Zosima Sarana, who died intestate, and who inherited Lot No. 6278-M.
• Lot No. 6278-M is a 17,181 square meter parcel covered by TCT No. T-11397, located at Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental.

Origin of the Dispute and Procedural Background

• On 18 September 1996, respondents commenced an action for recovery of possession and damages against various parties occupying or constructing on Lot No. 6278-M.
• Spouses Manuel and Elizabeth Almagro later intervened as successors-in-interest of spouses Delano Bangay and Maria Bangay.
• During pre-trial, parties agreed to have the case referred for a verification survey by the Land Management Services Division, PENRO-DENR, Dumaguete City.
• After PENRO personnel failed to conduct the survey, the court and parties designated Geodetic Engineer Jorge Suasin, Sr. as joint commissioner.

The Verification Survey and Findings

• The survey was conducted on 12–13 September 2000 in the presence of the parties, their lawyers, and the MTC Clerk of Court.
• Engr. Suasin’s written report established:
• A large portion of Lot No. 6278-M was submerged under the sea.
• A small portion remained as dry land.
• Various defendants had constructed buildings or houses either entirely on or partly on the dry land.
• The cost of the survey, amounting to ₱15,000, was equally shouldered by both plaintiffs and defendants.
• The report was submitted along with a blueprint sketch plan and a copy of the land title.

Decisions in Lower Courts

• The Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
• Admitted the survey report and pleadings.
• Dismissed the complaint on 11 May 2001, ruling that the remaining dry portion of Lot No. 6278-M had become foreshore land and thus reverted to the public domain.
• Based its decision on the definition of “foreshore” as the land between the high and low water marks, alternately wet and dry.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
• Conducted two ocular inspections on 5 October 2001 (during low tide) and 15 October 2001 (during high tide).
• Observed that the small dry portion remained dry even during high tide.
• Concluded that the disputed portion did not qualify as foreshore land.
• Rendered its decision on 8 January 2002 authorizing plaintiffs-appellants to recover possession of the remaining dry portion, with instructions to differentiate among the possessors.
• Denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners on 6 May 2002.
• The Court of Appeals
• In its 4 April 2006 decision, modified and affirmed the RTC ruling.
• Ordered that petitioners occupying or constructing on the disputed land vacate or demolish their structures within thirty (30) days.
• Rejected the petitioners’ contention that the disputed portion had become foreshore land due to lack of evidence—specifically the absence of concrete proof of foreshore lease permits from the DENR.

Key Evidentiary Findings

• The disputed portion is part of a Torrens title property originally registered in the names of Kwan Chin and Zosima Sarana.
• Survey evidence by Engr. Suasin confirmed that the disputed area is dry and away from the immediate shoreline.
• RTC’s ocular inspections corroborated that the land remained dry during both high and low tides.
• Arguments by petitioners that they possessed foreshore lease permits were not supported by any evidence.

Issue:

The primary issue in the case:

• Whether the disputed small portion of Lot No. 6278-M should be classified as private land or as foreshore land that constitutes part of the public domain.

Sub-issues considered by the Court:

• Whether the evidence, including the survey and ocular inspections, supports the claim that the disputed portion is alternately wet and dry.
• Whether the petitioners’ assertion of holding foreshore lease permits from the DENR is substantiated.
• The correct application of legal definitions and principles regarding foreshore lands as provided by law and jurisprudence.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)