8/8/2019 Republic v. Imperial

1/2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT

BUREAU vs. FELIX S. IMPERIAL JR., FELIZA SREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the

DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU 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 LEGASPI CITY

G.R. No. 130906 February 11, 1999

FACTS: On September 12, 1917, the late Elias Imperial was issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) 408

(500) pursuant to Decree No. 55173 of then Court of First Instance of Albay. OCT No. 55173 was

subdivided and further subdivided resulting in the issuance of several titles, which are now the subjects of

herein petition in the name of private respondents. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed a case with

the trial court to judicially declare the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) issued to herein private

respondents null and void on the ground that the subject land, on which the OCT was based, has the

features of a foreshore land based on an investigation conducted by the DENR, Region V, Legazpi City.

Respondents, on the other hand contend that Director of Lands found Jose Baritua's land covered by

TCT No.18655, which stemmed from OCT 408(500), to be "definitely outside of the foreshore area."

Within the time for pleading, private respondents EANCRA Corporation, Lolita Alcazar and Salvador

Alcazar filed their answer with cross-claim, while the rest, namely, Felix S. Imperial, Feliza S. Imperial,

Elias S. Imperial and Miriam S. Imperial filed a motion to dismiss. They contended that the adjudication

by the cadastral court is binding against the whole world including the Republic since the cadastral

proceedings are in rem and the government itself through the Director of Lands instituted the proceedings

and was a direct and active participant therein. Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed

an objection to the motion to dismiss. After hearing the motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed the

complaint on the ground that the judgment rendered by the cadastral court in G.R. Cad. Rec. No. 88 and

the Courts resolution in the petition to quiet title, G.R. 85770, both decreed that the parcel of land covered

by OCT No. 408 (500) was not foreshore. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellatecourt denied petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit and for failure to file the appellants

brief within the extended period granted to petitioner.

Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should be granted.

HELD: Yes.

At the core of the controversy is whether the parcels of land in question are foreshore lands. Foreshore

land is a part of the alienable land of the public domain and may be disposed of only by lease and not

otherwise. It was defined as "that part (of the land) which is between high and low water and left dry by

the flux and reflux of the tides." It is also known as "a strip of land that lies between the high and low

water marks and, is alternatively wet and dry according to the flow of the tide."

The classification of public lands is a function of the executive branch of government, specifically the

director of lands (now the director of the Lands Management Bureau). The decision of the director of

lands when approved by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) as to questions of fact is conclusive upon the court. The principle behind this ruling is that the

subject has been exhaustively weighed and discussed and must therefore be given credit. This doctrine

8/8/2019 Republic v. Imperial

2/2

finds no application, however, when the decision of the director of lands is revoked by, or in conflict with

that of, the DENR Secretary.

There is allegedly a conflict between the findings of the Director of Lands and the DENR, Region V, in the

present case. Respondents contend that the Director of Lands found Jose Baritua's land covered by TCT

No.18655, which stemmed from OCT 408(500), to be "definitely outside of the foreshore area."

Petitioner, on the other hand, claims that subsequent investigation of the DENR, Region V, Legazpi City,

disclosed that the land covered by OCT No. 408 (500) from whence the titles were derived "has the

features of a foreshore land." The contradictory views of the Director of Lands and the DENR, Region V,

Legazpi City, on the true nature of the land, which contradiction was neither discussed nor resolved by

the RTC, cannot be the premise of any conclusive classification of the land involved.

The need, therefore, to determine once and for all whether the lands subject of petitioner's reversion

efforts are foreshore lands constitutes good and sufficient cause for relaxing procedural rules and

granting the third and fourth motions for extension to file appellant's brief. Petitioner's appeal presents an

exceptional circumstance impressed with public interest and must then be given due course.

Petitioner Republic assailed the dismissal of its appeal on purely technical grounds. Petitioner alsoalleged that it has raised meritorious grounds which, if not allowed to be laid down before the proper

Court, will result to the prejudice of, and irreparable injury to, public interest, as the Government would

lose its opportunity to recover what it believes to be non-registerable lands of the public domain.

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court ruled that the question of what constitutes good and

sufficient cause that will merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the court. It has the power to

relax or suspend the rules or to except a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrants

or when the purpose of justice requires it. In the case at bar, the need to determine once and for all

whether the lands subject of petitioners reversion efforts are foreshore lands constitutes good and

sufficient cause for relaxing the procedural rules and granting the third and fourth motions for extensions

to file appellants brief. Petitioner Republics appeal presented an exceptional circumstance impressedwith public interest which in the Courts discretion must be given due course.