Case Summary (G.R. No. 210766)
Procedural history
The Secretary of Commerce and Communications ordered Romulo Mercado to remove two dikes that closed the two ends of the creek crossing the hacienda. Romulo (later donating the hacienda to Eufemia) appealed administratively; the Court of First Instance of Pampanga dismissed the appeal, holding the creek to be public domain. Eufemia Mercado, as assignee/donee of Romulo, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court.
Facts as found in the record
The creek, called Batasan‑Limasan or Pinac Bungalun, originally consisted of two recesses or arms (Bungalun and Batasan‑Limasan) connected to the Nasi River and Limasan creek. Mariano Mercado, the original hacienda owner, allegedly had men excavate to connect the recesses and to open channels toward both the Nasi River and Limasan creek, creating a continuous water route used as a canal. That canal appeared on the plan presented during registration proceedings that resulted in Certificate No. 329; no opposition was filed by defendants or the Insular Government at registration. From the time it was opened as a route, residents of the hacienda and others used it for passage and fishing, sometimes with and sometimes without permission. In 1928 Romulo Mercado closed the two openings to convert the canal into a fish pond.
Parties’ contentions
Appellant (through predecessors): The creek is artificial — a canal developed by excavations by the hacienda owners — and therefore part of the private estate. Closure and conversion into a fish pond were within the owner’s rights. The appellant relies on title and on evidence that excavations rendered the watercourse navigable.
Appellees (municipal president and Secretary): The creek is a natural, navigable creek existing long before the Revolution and is thus part of the public domain. Public rights attach, and private title cannot exclude public ownership.
Evidence presented and its weight
Appellant’s evidence: Testimony (Mariano/Romulo Mercado, Maximo de la Pena, Andres Limin) that excavations by approximately 60 laborers over two weeks connected two recesses and opened the channel; that navigability was achieved only after such work; that Romulo closed the creek in 1928 to prevent trespass. Evidence also showed that the creek appeared on the land plan admitted in the proceeding for Certificate No. 329 and that no opposition had been filed then.
Appellees’ evidence: Testimony (Castor Quiambao, Maximino Guintu, Lorenzo Magat) claiming long‑standing use and passage by locals and a municipal council resolution (Exhibit 6) placing the privilege to fish in the creek at public auction. The municipal resolution, however, lacked proof that any privilege was actually awarded. The court found appellees’ witnesses less persuasive: one witness was relatively young and admitted limited use, and others were not local residents with the same familiarity as appellant’s witnesses. A Bureau of Lands measurement (in November) showed the channel over two meters deep at the mouth and about 1.5 meters at shallow parts, indicating substantial navigability.
Legal issues presented
- Whether the Batasan‑Limasan (Pinac Bungalun) creek is part of the public domain irrespective of its presence within a titled hacienda.
- Whether excavations and subsequent private use could convert what might otherwise be public waters into private property belonging to the titleholder.
- Whether the issuance of Certificate of Title No. 329 conferred any right to the creek that would supersede public domain claims, given statutory exceptions.
Applicable legal principles applied by the court
- Civil Code, Article 339: property devoted to public use includes canals, rivers, torrents, ports, and the like.
- Civil Code, Article 407: items of public ownership include rivers and their natural channels; continuous or intermittent waters running in natural channels; waters flowing from private lands to the State or towns are public from the moment they leave such lands (Article 407(8) being particularly invoked).
- Civil Code, Article 408: identifies kinds of private ownership of waters (e.g., waters rising and running within private estates, lakes and ponds formed naturally on estates) and treats ditches or aqueducts as integral if the waters are intended for private estate use; owners along such aqueducts lack ownership unless title deeds specifically grant it.
- Prescription and public use: use and enjoyment of property susceptible of appropriation may be acquired or lost by prescription. The need for authorization to deprive the public of use of waterways is stressed.
- Act No. 496, section 39: certificates of title are subject to statutory exceptions; public domain features shown on plans are not thereby converted into private property.
Court’s analysis
The court recognized conflicting testimony but emphasized the undisputed geographic and hydrological fact that the creek derived its waters from the Nasi River and from Limasan creek — bodies that belong to the public domain. Under Article 407(8) and Article 339, a watercourse that functions as an arm connecting public waterways is of a character th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 210766)
Procedural History
- Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga dismissing appellant Eufemia Mercado's appeal from an order of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications.
- The Secretary's order directed Romulo Mercado, appellant’s predecessor in interest, to remove two dikes he had constructed at both ends of the creek named Batasan-Limasan or Pinac Bungalun which traverses part of the hacienda described in certificate of title No. 329 of the registry of deeds of Pampanga.
- After institution of this action, Romulo Mercado formally donated the hacienda to Eufemia Mercado; appellant pursued the appeal.
- The court a quo held that the creek in question is property of the public domain.
- This judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment with costs against the appellant.
Parties
- Appellant/Plaintiff: Eufemia Mercado (successor in interest to Romulo Mercado; titleholder via certificate No. 329; received formal donation from Romulo Mercado after institution of the action).
- Predecessor in interest (record): Romulo Mercado (originally owner and actor who closed the creek in 1928 and earlier had converted parts into fishpond).
- Appellees/Defendants: The Municipal President of Macabebe, Pampanga, and the Secretary of Commerce and Communications.
- Judges concurring in the Supreme Court decision: Street, Malcolm, Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ.
Factual Background — Origin and Development of the Creek
- The creek at issue is identified as Batasan-Limasan or Pinac Bungalun and traverses part of the hacienda described in certificate of title No. 329.
- When the hacienda belonged to Mariano Mercado (appellant’s grandfather), a portion of the creek (indicated on plan Exhibit 2 by two parallel black ink lines from point marked 3 towards the center until it turns northwards) was a recess or arm called Bungalun of the Nasi River and was lost on the hacienda.
- That recess extended close to a small creek called Batasan-Limasan which derived its waters, particularly during high tide, from the larger creek called Limasan (as indicated on the plan).
- Mariano Mercado, to facilitate cutting and transportation of firewood and other products, connected the two recesses/bodies of water by excavations directed towards the Nasi River (east) and towards Limasan creek (west), creating a canal directly connecting both bodies of water; this canal later became known as the Batasan-Limasan or Pinac Bungalun creek.
- The Batasan-Limasan or Pinac Bungalun creek or canal already existed at the time of the institution of the registration proceedings that resulted in issuance of certificate of title No. 329 in favor of Romulo Mercado; the creek appears on the plan presented in that registration case.
- At the time the registration case was tried and when certificate of title No. 329 was issued, neither the defendants nor the Insular Government filed opposition or objection to the inclusion of the creek on the plan.
- After the canal was opened from the Nasi River to Limasan creek, residents of the hacienda and inhabitants of nearby barrios and municipalities used it as a means of communication and for fishing, sometimes with permission of the owners and sometimes without.
- In 1928 Romulo Mercado closed the two openings toward the Nasi River and Limasan creek to convert the creek into a fishpond; he had previously ordered it closed during and after the revolution to prevent entrance and passage of strangers who cut or carried away firewood without permission.
Evidence Presented by Appellant (and Predecessor)
- Testimony that the creek is artificial, developed on the hacienda by excavations made by Mariano Mercado’s men on two different occasions: once before the revolution (Spanish regime) and again after the revolution.
- Witnesses for appellant included Romulo Mercado, Maximo de la Pena, and Andres Limin.
- These witnesses testified that:
- The creek became navigable only after Mariano Mercado had excavated both ends and the junction of the former two recesses.
- About 60 men were employed for approximately two weeks to perform such excavations.
- During the revolution and for about ten years thereafter many persons entered the hacienda to cut or remove firewood; Romulo ordered the creek closed to prevent strangers from entering and passing through it.
- Evidence established that the creek existed and was used at least since 1906 until it was closed in 1928.
Evidence Presented by Appellees (Municipal President and Secretary)
- Appellees contended the creek is a natural navigable creek existing from time immemorial on the hacienda.
- Witnesses for appellees included Castor Quiambao, Maximino Guintu and Lorenzo Magat.
- These witnesses testified they had been passing through and fishing in the creek as often as they wished long before the revolution until it was closed in 1928.
- Appellees presented resolution No. 6 of the municipal council of Macabebe, Pampanga (Exhibit 6), placing at public auction the privilege of fishing in the Batasan-Limasan creek among other rivers and creeks.
- The court found Exhibit 6 insufficient to show public ownership because it did not establish that anyone had actually obtained the fishing privilege; a mere notice (Exhibit 6) was not deemed sufficient evidence that the creek belonged to the public domain.
- The court considered appellees’ witnesses relatively less persuasive: Castor Quiambao admitted limited frequency of passage (once or twice a month in youth) and other appellee witnesses were not residents, hence less knowledgeable of the creek’s changes.