Case #1

SPOUSES PELAGIO GULLA and PERALTA GULLA

vs
HEIRS OF ALEJANDRO LABRADOR
G.R. No. 149418 July 27, 2006
Facts:
Respondents filled a complaint against the petitioner for "Cancellation of Tax Declaration
and Recovery of Possession with Damages" (accion publiciana). The complaint involved
a 22,590-square-meter lot covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-13350,
and the 562-square-meter lot abutting the titled property. On November 3, 1998, the MTC
rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, ordering the petitoner to VACATE the
portion including the 565 salvage zone actually occupied by them immediately and to pay
P1,000.00 as monthly rental from July 1996, until they vacate the premises and
P10,000.00 as actual damages and attorney's fee of P20,000.00. According to the MTC,
the respondents were able to establish ownership over the subject property, as evidenced
by the title under their name (OCT No. P-13350). As to the petitioner, they failed to
overcome the evidence of the respondents and not being the riparian owners of Lot A
which is within the salvage zone, they have no right to possess the same.
According to the Labradors, the property was declared for taxation purposes under their
names (Tax Declaration No. 010-0469A) and the corresponding taxes were paid thereon.
In 1996, the spouses Gulla occupied a portion of the property fronting the China Sea, as
well as the 562-square-meter lot within the salvage area. The spouses Gulla then
constructed a house in the occupied property and fenced its perimeter. The Labradors
pointed out that whatever alleged claims the spouses Gulla had on the property was
acquired through a Deed of Waiver of Rights dated July 23, 1996 executed in their favor
by another "squatter" Alfonso Bactad.
On appeal, the RTC rendered judgment on March 23, 1999 affirming the appealed
decision. It ratiocinated that, as correctly observed by the court a quo, Lot A is beyond the
perimeter of the property covered by OCT No. P-13350 and is within the salvage zone
that abutted the property of respondents. Applying Article 440 of the New Civil Code, the
RTC declared that the Labradors had the right to possess the land, it being inseparably
attached to the titled property as an accessory.
On December 11, 2000, the CA rendered judgment affirming the assailed decision.
Applying Article 440 of the New Civil Code, the appellate court declared that although
Lot A is outside the titled property of the Labradors, by analogy, as the owners of the
adjoining property, the latter have the priority to use it. the Labradors, although not the
owners of the property within the salvage zone, have the right to use it more than the
spouses Gulla.
issue:
 whether or not petitioners are entitled to the possession of Lot A which is located at the
foreshore of San Felipe, Zambales.
held:
No, MTC, the RTC and the CA were one in ruling that the 562-square-meter property,
Lot A, is part of the public domain, hence, beyond the commerce of men and not capable
of registration. In fact, the land is within the salvage zone fronting the China Sea as well
as the property covered by OCT No. P-13350 in the name of respondents. The provision
relied upon is Article 440 of the New Civil Code, which states that "the ownership of
property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is
incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially." The provision, however,
does not apply in this case, considering that Lot A is a foreshore land adjacent to the sea
which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the tides. Such property
belongs to the public domain and is not available for private ownership until formally
declared by the government to be no longer needed for public use. respondents thus have
no possessory right over the property unless upon application, the government, through
the then Bureau of Lands, had granted them a permit.
there is no such permit was issued or granted in favor of respondents. respondents have
no cause of action to cause petitioners eviction from the subject property. The real party-
in-interest to file a complaint against petitioners for recovery of possession of the subject
property and cause petitioner's eviction therefrom is the Republic of the Philippines,
through the Office of the Solicitor General. Consequently, petitioners cannot be required
to pay any rentals to respondents for their possession of the property.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is partially GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. SP No. 52176 is AFFIRMED WITH THE
MODIFICATION that the complaint of respondents is DISMISSED insofar as Lot A with
an area of 562 square meters is concerned. The Municipal Trial Court of San Felipe,
Zambales, is ORDERED to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 381
insofar as Lot A with an area of 562 square meters is concerned without prejudice to the
right of the Republic of the Philippines to take such appropriate action for the recovery of
said lot from petitioners.
SO ORDERED.