05 Palanca Vs Commonwealth

Palanca v.
Commonwealth
G.R. No. 46373
DOCTRINE: A private person may not acquire ownership of a property of public dominion (such
as navigable waters) through prescription or even by virtue of a Torrens title.
FACTS:
On the 17th of July 1919 Carlos Palanca obtained a decision from the Court of First Instance of
Bulacan for the registration of 4 parcels of land, each adjacent to the others and separated only
among them by some waterways called “esteros”. Before the decision is read, the government
through the fiscal general presented a petition for reopening of the case to check on the
existence of “esteros” and rivers that are navigable in the terrain, with the intention of
setting/including the said circumstance in the map and so that it be excluded from the
registration.
The Court denied this petition because they consider it unnecessary. Despite its presence in
the terrain, the registration of these will not affect the rights of propriety of the Insular
Government or the public use of the said waterways, which will always remain safe with article
39 of the Law Register of Propriety.
Much later, the Government of the Islands of the Philippines presented the current action
against Carlos Palanca claiming that he is illegally occupying portions of the Viray River and
Sapang Sedaria “estero’, which are navigable and was asked that he be obliged to open it, and
leave it in its primitive state. The court discontinues this action; but elevated it to the Court of
Appeals.
The Court of Appeals declared that the said River Viray and Sapang Sedaria “estero’ are of the
possession and use of the public and that the right acquired by Carlos Palanca over the land in
which the waterways are located does not affect the right of the State over them, as goods
destined for public use.
Carlos Palanca in his turn elevated an appeal through “certiorari” to this decision of the Court of
Appeals to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
What is the status of the river and estero?
HELD:
The river and the “estero” being navigable, useful for commerce, the navigation and fishing,
have the character of public possession and its legal condition in this sense has not been
affected by the possession of Carlos Palance, whenever has been the time of this possession,
because it does not admit any prescription against the State over goods of public use.
The Court of Appeals declared in view of the proofs presented in the case that the River Viray
and the Sapang Sedaria “Estero” are found within the land of Carlos Palanca that was the
object of the decision of the Court of First Instance, and that said river and “estero” are
navigable and of common use, serves as a communication between two courses of water which
flows into the Manila Bay, and that the water current in them are of the possession and use of
the public, useful for commerce, navigation and fishing and that they have these conditions
when the land that surrounds them still pertains to the State.
These being the fact, the request or the recourse opened before this tribunal should be denied,
thus confirming the decision pronounced by the Court of Appeals.
We cannot find basis for the request of the appellant that the decision pronounced by the Court
of First Instance and the Torrens title issued, in its consequence, in favor of Carlos Palanca
establish the non-existence of the river and “estero” in question as navigable. In that decision, it
is well said that the terrain is crossed by some waterways called “esteros”. There is no
declaration whatsoever that these “esteros” are not navigable. On the other hand, when the
government asked for opportunity to prove that some of these “esteros” are navigable, the court
denied them this opportunity due to the reason that, if they really are navigable, the right of the
Government over them, by reason of such condition of the River Viray and the Sapang Sedaria
“estero” as navigable, have not been the object of the judicial decision.
As for the rest, the river and the “estero” being navigable, useful for commerce, the navigation
and fishing, have the character of public possession and its legal condition in this sense has not
been affected by the possession of Carlos Palance, whenever has been the time of this
possession, because it does not admit any prescription against the State over goods of public
use.
For these considerations, the appeal is denied and the decision of the court of appeals is
confirmed.
KGS

05 Palanca Vs Commonwealth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

05 Palanca Vs Commonwealth

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

05 Palanca Vs Commonwealth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palanca v.

You might also like