G.R. No. 9128 - Francisco vs. Government of the Philippine Islands

Evaristo Francisco, petitioning as both applicant in case No. 8322 and objecting party in case No. 8519;
The Government of the Philippine Islands, acting as both respondent in one case and appellant in the other; and
The City of Manila, likewise appearing as respondent and appellant in different aspects of the dispute.

The disputed property is a small parcel of land (546.50 square meters) located in the district of Ermita, Manila.

Identified as parcel No. 3 (or lot X in certain records) and part of a larger tract measuring 2,039 square meters included in Francisco’s application.
Environmentally, the land was originally subject to the tidal movements of Manila Bay, being covered by sea water at high tide and largely bare at low tide until infrastructural changes altered its condition.

Evaristo Francisco claims the land was acquired “by purchase from the administrator and guardian, Luis Javier, of the estate of Bonifacia Panganiban.”
The history provided by witness testimonies suggests an earlier chain:

Pedro Carbonel is said to have been the original possessor from circa 1878-1880;
Luis Javier allegedly purchased the land from Carbonel in 1894 as settlement of a debt, supported by a private document that was reportedly lost;
Testimonies by Luis Javier, Romualdo Gramonte, and Honorato Agrava indicate that Carbonel possessed the lot, maintained houses and leased portions to tenants, and later transferred it to Javier who demonstrated acts of ownership such as rent collection and physical improvements (fencing the lot).

Both the Insular Government and the City of Manila objected to Francisco’s registration of the parcel, asserting that:

The land is part of the public domain, as defined by subsection 1 of Article 339 of the Civil Code and reinforced by the Law on Waters of August 3, 1866, along with related legal provisions (e.g., Partida 3, Title 28, Law 3).
The property qualifies as a seashore because it is subject to tidal coverage, making it accessible and for public use, similar to other public shores and ports.

Tax records consistently identifying the land as part of Manila Bay’s beach;
A Spanish map (from the era of Spanish governance) showing the disputed lot within the bay’s boundaries in 1895; and
Physical evidence such as the existence of retaining walls built by neighboring private owners (e.g., Mr. Teus) and by U.S. military authorities, all indicating the natural policy of the tidal shore.

Testimonies from multiple witnesses were crucial in establishing the history of possession:

Luis Javier admitted to having lost the private document evidencing Carbonel’s sale, with his testimonies reflecting inconsistencies regarding the document’s whereabouts, the amount involved, and the timeline of events.
Other witnesses (Gramonte and Agrava) corroborated Carbonel’s longstanding possession and the physical occupancy/use of the lot, including structures and tenant arrangements.

Despite these testimonies, Evaristo Francisco failed to present any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim or prove effective adverse possession.

In case No. 8322, the Court of Land Registration decreed the registration of the disputed parcel in favor of Francisco despite conflicting evidence regarding its public nature.
In case No. 8519, the Insular Government’s proceedings under section 61 of Act No. 926, alongside the validated sale of the property by the Government to the City of Manila (under Act No. 1890), form part of the controversy.

Whether parcel No. 3 in the district of Ermita is part of the seashore of Manila Bay and thus a property of public domain.
If the characteristics of the tidal influence on the land confirm its status as a public asset.

Whether the chain of occupancy beginning with Pedro Carbonel, followed by Luis Javier, and supported by testimonial evidence is adequate to establish a private title.
The credibility and consistency of testimonies, particularly regarding the loss of the private document and the demonstration of possession.

Whether the registration of the land in favor of Evaristo Francisco should be upheld in light of the definitions of public domain as per Article 339 and the Law on Waters.
How the principles underlying adverse possession and public domain are applied in conveying the final decree.

Whether the Court of Land Registration erred in awarding possession to Francisco, given the government’s substantial evidence supporting public ownership.
The legitimacy of the sale from the Government to the City of Manila and its implication on the rightful ownership of parcel No. 3.