Almagro vs.

Kwan
G.R. NO. 175806 and 175810
Oct. 20, 2010

Petitioner: Manuel Almagro and his spouse, Elizabeth Almagro

Respondents: Salvacion C. Kwan, William C. Kwan, Victoria C. Kwan, assisted by her husband,
Jose A. Arbas and Cecilia C. Kwan

GR No. 175849
Petitioner: Margarita Pachoro, Dronica Orlina, Pio Tubat jr. et. Al
Respondents: Salvacion C. Kwan, William C. Kwan, Victoria C. Kwan, assisted by her husband,
Jose A. Arbas and Cecilia C. Kwan

Ponente: Carpio, J.

Facts:

This case involves Lot No. 6278-M, a 17,181 sq. m. parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-11397,
located at Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental. Said lot is registered in the name of spouses Kwan
Chin and Zosima Sarana, legitimate parents of the respondents. Upon the death of their parents
in 1986 and 1976, respondents inherited said lot through hereditary succession.

On September 18, 1996, respondents filed with the MTC an action for recovery of possession and
damages against petitioners as well as those who are occupants within the boundary of the land
in controversy. During the pre-trial, the Court and the parties designated Geodetic Engr. Jorge
Suasin, Jr. to perform the task of verification and relocation survey ofsaid lot and which was
accordingly executed on September 12-13, 2000.
In the written report of Engr. Suasin, it contained, inter alia, that the big portion of the lot is
submerged under the sea and a small portion remain as dry land, and that some of the
defendants have constructed buildings or houses inside the dry land.

In the Court’s judgment dated May 11, 2001, the MTC dismissed the complaint on the ground
that the remaining dry portion of Lot No. 6278-M has become foreshore land and should be
returned to the public domain. Respondents appealed to the RTC, which subsequently concluded
upon conducting two ocular inspections, that the disputed remaining portion is not foreshore
land because it remained dry even during high tides. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but
were denied. They also filed separate petitions for review with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE
The primary issue in this case is whether the disputed portion of Lot No. 6278-M is still private
land or has become foreshore land which forms part of the public domain.

HELD

Supreme Court held that the disputed land is a private land and is rightfully owned by the
respondents. The High Court stated that to qualify as a 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. The land’s proximity to the waters alone does not automatically make it a
foreshore land. In this case, it was clearly proved that the disputed land remained dry even during
high tide. Indeed, all evidence supports the conclusion that the disputed portion of Lot No. 6278-
M is not foreshore land but remains private land owned by respondents.