Consorcia Cabangis vs Govt of Phil. Islands, 27 March 1929, 53 Phil 112

Doctrine: Lands disappearing due to gradual erosion due to the ebb and flow of the tide and remained in that state until reclaimed from the sea by the filling done by the Government, remain public land.

Action: Appeal of the Attorney General on behalf of the Philippine government assailing the award of land title and ownership by CFI Manila via cadastral proceeding 373 to the heirs of Don Tomas Cabangis named Consorcia, Consuelo, Elvira and Tomas.

Facts: Lots 36, 39 and 40, block 3035 of cadastral proceeding No. 71 of the City of Manila, G. L. R. O. Record No. 373, were formerly a part of a large parcel of land which belonged to predecessor of the Cabangis siblings. From 1896, the land started to erode because of the waves of Manila Bay. Then from 1901, these lots became completely submerged in water in ordinary tides and remained as such. In 1912, the Government undertook dredging of Vitas Estuary 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 said lots in question once formed a part of a large parcel of land belonging to their predecessors including Tomas, who after taking possession of it after reclamation, gave permission to some fishermen to dry their fishing nets and deposit their bancas there.

In 1926, Dr. Pedro Gil, in their behalf, declared the lands for taxation purposes (belonging to them). But until February 1927, nobody had declared ownership or possession of Lot 39 for such purpose.

Issue: W/N the Cabangis siblings own lots 36, 39 and 40 in question?

Held: The Supreme Court reversed the awarding of the lower CFI Manila. It held that even Tomas Cabangis allowed fisher men to dry fishing nets and deposit bancas on the said submerged lots, it did not confer valid possession as a land owner to his successors. The Court also used Article 5 of the Law of Waters, which stated that the lands that disappeared due to gradual erosion due to the ebb and flow of the tide, and having remained in such a state until they were reclaimed from the sea by the filling in done by the Government remain public land.