Facts:

• The case involves the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) against Capital Resources Corporation (CRC), Romeo Roxas, and the Register of Deeds of La Union (respondents).
• The dispute concerns a parcel of land in Barangay Pugo, Bauang, La Union, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-23343.
• The land was initially granted to Vitaliano Dumuk via a Homestead Patent on July 26, 1924, leading to Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 137.
• OCT No. 137 was later cancelled and replaced by TCT No. T-6603 in the names of spouses Cecilio and Laura Milo.
• CRC and Roxas acquired the property from the Milos, resulting in TCT No. T-23343 issued on December 16, 1982.
• The property was subdivided into several blocks, including Block 35 (designated as a "salvage zone") and Block 36 (overlapping with the China Sea).
• A subdivision plan was approved in 1988 but cancelled by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in 2005.
• A 1987 cadastral survey indicated Blocks 35 and 36 were part of foreshore land and seabed.
• In 2003, a foreshore lease application by Alberto Hidalgo prompted protests from CRC and Roxas regarding TCT No. T-23343's validity.
• DENR investigations concluded the land had eroded due to sea waters, recommending reversion of Blocks 35 and 36 to the State.
• The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for cancellation of TCT No. T-23343 and reversion of the land to public domain.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Republic, declaring Blocks 35 and 36 as foreshore lands and ordering their reversion.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, leading to the Republic's current appeal.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit.
• The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, which upheld the RTC's ruling that Blocks 35 and 36 ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court emphasized the principle of estoppel, stating that issues not timely raised in lower court proceedings cannot be considered on appeal.
• The Republic did not include contested issues in its original complaint and pre-trial brief, waiving its right to raise them later.
• The allegations in the complaint were limited to the status of Blocks 35 and 36 as foreshore lands; new issues in a motion for reconsideration were not part of the original pl...continue reading