G.R. No. L-28379
March 27, 1929
FACTS
Lots 36, 39 and 40, which are subject to cadastral
proceeding of the City of Manila were formerly a part of a large parcel of land
belonging to the predecessor of the herein claimants and appellees.
From the year 1896 said land began to wear away,
due to the action of the waves of Manila Bay, until the year 1901 when the said
lots became completely submerged in water in ordinary tides, and remained in
such a state. On 1912, the Government
undertook the dredging of Vitas Estuary in order to facilitate navigation,
depositing all the sand and silt taken from the bed of the estuary on the low
lands which were completely covered with water, surrounding that belonging to
the Philippine Manufacturing Company, thereby slowly and gradually forming the
lots, the subject matter of this proceeding.
Nobody had declared lot 39 for the purposes of
taxation, and it was only in the year 1926 that Dr. Pedro Gil, in behalf of the
claimants and appellees, declared lot No. 40 for such purpose.
The claimants-appellees contend that inasmuch as
the said lots once formed a part of a large parcel of land belonging to their
predecessors, whom they succeeded, and their immediate predecessor in interest
having taken possession thereof, said lots belong to them.
ISSUE
To which does the ownership
of the reclaimed land belong to?
RULING
The Government owns the
reclaimed land in the sense that it has become property of public dominion,
because in letting it remained submerged, the claimants-appellees may be said
to have abandoned the same. Having become part of the sea or seashore, it became
property for public use. When the government took steps to make it land again,
its status as public dominion remained unchanged. As provided by Article 5 of
the Law of Waters,
ART. 5. Lands reclaimed from the
sea in consequence of works constructed by the State, or by the provinces,
pueblos or private persons, with proper permission, shall become the property
of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided by the terms of
the grant of authority.
Therefore, the claimants-
appellees are not entitled to the land.
Comments
Post a Comment