Government of the Philippine Islands v. Cabangis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lots 36, 39, and 40, block 3055 of the cadastral survey of Manila, were claimed by the appellees, Consuelo, Consorcia, Elvira, and Tomas Cabangis, who alleged they formed part of a larger parcel of land belonging to their predecessors. The Government of the Philippine Islands appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila that adjudicated title to the appellees. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila adjudicated title and decreed the registration of the lots in favor of the claimants-appellees, dismissing the claims of the Government of the Philippine Islands and the City of Manila. The Government appealed this decision. The Petition: The Government of the Philippine Islands appealed, assigning errors including the lower court's failure to hold that the lots are of the public domain, having been gained from the sea by accession and fillings, and its error in holding that the lots formed part of the private property of the spouses Maximo Cabangis and Tita Andres and that they had been in continuous possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the lots in question are of the public domain, having been gained from the sea by accession and fillings. Whether the lots in question formed part of the private land of the spouses Maximo Cabangis and Tita Andres and if they had been in continuous, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession. Whether the lots, having disappeared due to natural causes and later reclaimed by government works, belong to the claimants-appellees or the Government.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila is reversed. Lots Nos. 36, 39, and 40 of cadastral proceeding No. 373 of the City of Manila are held to be public land belonging to the Government of the United States under the administration and control of the Government of the Philippine Islands.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the lots in question are of the public domain, having been gained from the sea by accession and fillings: The Court held that the evidence showed the lots were gradually washed away by the waves of Manila Bay from 1896 until 1901, when they became completely submerged. They remained submerged until 1912 when the Government undertook dredging of the Vitas Estuary and deposited sand and silt on the surrounding lowlands, thereby forming the lots. According to Article 339, subsection 1 of the Civil Code and Article 1, case 3 of the Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, shores and lands gained from the sea by accession are part of the public domain. The Court cited Aragon vs. Insular Government (19 Phil., 223) stating that private property can become property of public ownership when it is abandoned and becomes part of the shore. The failure of the claimants' predecessors to protect their land by building a retaining wall from 1896 to 1901, when it became submerged, constituted abandonment. On whether the lots in question formed part of the private land of the spouses Maximo Cabangis and Tita Andres and if they had been in continuous, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession: The Court found that the land belonging to the predecessors of the claimants began to wear away in 1896 due to the action of the waves until 1901 when the lots became completely submerged. This submergence lasted until 1912. The Court distinguished this from cases where land is covered by water due to acts entirely independent of the owner's will, such as the removal of sand for street filling as in Buzon vs. Insular Government and City of Manila (13 Phil., 324). In the present case, the submergence was due to natural erosion, and the subsequent reclamation was by government works. The Court also noted that the claimants' predecessors did nothing to prevent the destruction of their land. The fact that fishermen were allowed to dry nets and deposit bancas on the lots after 1912, by permission of Tomas Cabangis, did not confer ownership as the lots had already become public land. On whether the lots, having disappeared due to natural causes and later reclaimed by government works, belong to the claimants-appellees or the Government: The Court ruled that Article 5 of the Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, states that lands reclaimed from the sea by works constructed by the State, or by provinces, pueblos, or private persons with proper permission, shall become the property of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided. Since the reclamation here was a result of government works (dredging of Vitas Estuary), and the claimants or their predecessors did not undertake these works or obtain permission to reclaim, the lots belong to the Government. The Court reiterated that the lots disappeared due to gradual erosion and submergence, and were subsequently reclaimed by government filling, thus they are public land, citing Aragon vs. Insular Government and Francisco vs. Government of the Philippine Islands (28 Phil., 505).
Main Doctrine
Lands reclaimed from the sea as a result of works constructed by the State, or by provinces, pueblos or private persons with proper permission, become the property of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided. However, lands lost due to gradual erosion and submergence by the sea, which are subsequently reclaimed by government works, are considered public land.