Mercado v. Municipal President of Macabebe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eufemia Mercado appealed a decision dismissing her appeal from an order by the Secretary of Commerce and Communications directing the removal of two dikes constructed by Romulo Mercado (appellant's predecessor in interest) at both ends of a creek named Batasan-Limasan or Pinac Buñgalun. This creek traversed part of a hacienda now owned by the appellant. The core contention was whether the creek was a natural, public waterway or an artificial, private canal. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pampanga held that the creek was property of the public domain. The appellant maintained that the creek was artificial, excavated on their hacienda, while appellees contended it was a natural, navigable creek existing since time immemorial. The Petition: The appellant sought to reverse the lower court's decision, arguing that the creek was an artificial excavation on their private property and thus not subject to public domain classification.
Issue(s)
Whether the Batasan-Limasan or Pinac Buñgalun creek is property of the public domain or private ownership. Whether the issuance of a Torrens title in favor of the appellant's predecessor precludes the state from asserting the public character of the creek.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that the Batasan-Limasan or Pinac Buñgalun creek is property of the public domain.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the creek is public property by applying Articles 339 and 407 of the Civil Code. It defined a creek as an arm of a river participating in the ebb and flow of the sea, distinguishing it from a 'brook,' which is a short, continuous stream of water typically under private ownership. Even if the creek reached its current navigable proportions through private labor and excavations, its connection to the Nasi River and Limasan Creek—both public waters—rendered it public. The Court emphasized that since 1906, the public had used the waterway for navigation and fishing without obtaining exclusive authorization from the owners. Consequently, any private right the owners might have had was lost through prescription. The Court held that when private and public interests regarding navigable waters conflict, the private interest must yield to the public good. On Issue 2: The Court held that the Torrens title does not grant the appellant ownership over the creek. Under Section 39 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496), the title is subject to several statutory exceptions, including properties of the public domain. The fact that the creek appeared on the registration plan and that the Insular Government failed to object during the registration process did not extinguish the creek's character as public property. Navigable waters and their beds are inherent parts of the public domain and cannot be effectively appropriated by private individuals through land registration. Therefore, the Certificate of Title No. 329 remains subject to the public's right to use the navigable creek as a matter of law.
Main Doctrine
A creek, even if artificially developed on private land, becomes property of the public domain if it connects to public waters and is used by the public for navigation and fishing, especially when the private owner fails to obtain authorization for exclusive use and loses any potential right through prescription.