Republic v. Imperial, Jr.
This is a civil case where the Republic of the Philippines sought the reversion of certain lands and the cancellation of titles held by private respondents, claiming that the lands are foreshore lands. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the lands are not foreshore lands because they are not affected by the flow of the tides and remain dry even during high tide. The water in the creek that separates and bounds the lands on the east flows to the sea and not from it. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive, and may not be re-examined by the Supreme Court.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202025. July 1, 2019.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.FELIX S. IMPERIAL, JR., FELIZA S. IMPERIAL, ELIAS S. IMPERIAL, MIRIAM S. IMPERIAL, LOLITA ALCAZAR, SALVADOR ALCAZAR, EANCRA CORPORATION, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LEGAZPI CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202025 (Republic of the Philippines v. Felix S. Imperial, Jr., Feliza S. Imperial, Elias S. Imperial, Miriam S. Imperial, Lolita Alcazar, Salvador Alcazar, EANCRA Corporation, and the Register of Deeds of Legazpi City)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 20, 2012 Decision 2 and the May 24, 2012 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 89731 for failure of petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in ruling that the subject lands are not foreshore lands, and dismissing its complaint 4 for the reversion of the subject lands and the cancellation of the titles of respondents Felix S. Imperial, Jr., Feliza S. Imperial, Elias S. Imperial, Miriam S. Imperial, Lolita Alcazar, Salvador Alcazar, and EANCRA Corporation (respondents). HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, the subject lands are not foreshore lands considering that: (a) the same were not affected by the flow of the tides and remained dry even during high tide; 5 and (b) the water that accumulates in the creek that separates and bounds the subject lands on the east appeared to be flowing to the sea and not from it. 6 To qualify as foreshore land, it must be shown that the land lies between the high and low water marks and is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide, 7 which was not the case for the subject lands, thus, supporting the conclusion that the same are not foreshore lands but remain private lands owned by respondents. Moreover, it is well-settled that the findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive and may not be re-examined by this Court. 8 Although there are exceptions to this rule, 9 none of which obtain in this case. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-49.
2.Id. at 56-72. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring.
3.Id. at 74-75.
4. Dated December 12, 1995; id. at 81-87.
5. See id. at 70.
6. See id. at 71.
7. See Republic v. CA, 216 Phil. 500, 508 (1984).
8. See Leriou v. Longa, G.R. No. 203923, October 8, 2018.
9. See Republic v. Hachero, 785 Phil. 784, 792-793 (2016).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU