G.R. No. 175806 175810 - Almagro vs. Kwan

The case involves the consolidation of two petitions for review challenging the decisions of the Court of Appeals.
The petitions concern Lot No. 6278-M, a 17,181 square meter parcel of land in Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, registered under TCT No. T-11397.
Respondents are the legitimate heirs of Kwan Chin and Zosima Sarana, who died intestate, and inherited the property through hereditary succession.
The respondents filed an action for recovery of possession and damages against multiple defendants, including the spouses Almagro, who intervened as successors-in-interest.

During pre-trial, the parties agreed to a verification survey of Lot No. 6278-M, which was conducted by Geodetic Engineer Jorge Suasin, Sr.
The survey revealed that a significant portion of the lot was submerged under the sea, with only a small area remaining as dry land.
The report detailed the locations of various defendants' constructions, indicating whether they were built on dry land or submerged areas.

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 revert to the public domain.
The MTC defined "foreshore" and explained that the property, being alternately wet and dry due to tidal movements, was no longer private land.
The court emphasized that the doctrine of indefeasibility of title could not apply since the land was classified as foreshore land at the time of registration.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) conducted ocular inspections of Lot No. 6278-M during both low and high tides.
The RTC observed that the small dry portion remained dry even at high tide, contradicting the MTC's classification of the land as foreshore.
The RTC concluded that the disputed land did not meet the legal definition of foreshore land, as it was not adjacent to the sea and did not alternate between wet and dry conditions.

On January 8, 2002, the RTC reversed the MTC's decision, affirming the plaintiffs' right to recover possession of the remaining dry portion of the property.
The RTC ordered the case to be remanded for further evidence to determine the good faith of the defendants.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications, ordering specific petitioners to vacate the premises within thirty days.
The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the RTC's application of law and emphasized the need for finality in litigation.
The court modified the RTC's decision by eliminating the need to determine the good faith of the builders, as it was established that they were aware of the property's status.

The central issue was whether the disputed portion of Lot No. 6278-M had become foreshore land and thus part of the public domain.
Petitioners claimed the land was foreshore and presented alleged foreshore lease permits, but failed...continue reading