This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-07-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court, the RTC and the CA were one in ruling that the 562-square-meter property, Lot A, is part of the public domain, hence, beyond the commerce of men and not capable of registration. In fact, the land is within the salvage zone fronting the China Sea as well as the property covered by OCT No. P-13350 in the name of respondents. The provision relied upon is Article 440 of the New Civil Code, which states that "[t]he ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially." The provision, however, does not apply in this case, considering that Lot A is a foreshore land adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the tides. Such property belongs to the public domain and is not available for private ownership until formally declared by the government to be no longer needed for public use.[14] Respondents thus have no possessory right over the property unless upon application, the government, through the then Bureau of Lands, had granted them a permit.[15] | |||||
|
2001-02-06 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| On January 18, 1989, LIDECO Corporation filed a Motion for Intervention and to Admit Attached Complaint in Intervention in LRC Case No. M-1530, alleging that it is the owner and possessor of two buildings constructed on the two lots subject of the ex parte petition for the issuance of writ of possession. The complaint for intervention was initially admitted by the RTC, but was stricken off upon motion by Bormaheco alleging that LIDECO Corporation was not a duly registered corporation, and hence had no legal personality. Laureano Investment and Development Corporation, the majority of the stock of which is held by the Laureano spouses, filed an Urgent Motion to Substitute Party Intervenor (LIDECO Corporation) and to Adopt Complaint in Intervention and All Pleadings, but this was denied by the RTC. Laureano Investment and Development Corporation assailed the two RTC Orders[5] in a Petition for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals (C.A. G.R. No. 22763). The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, and such dismissal was questioned by Laureano Investment and Development Corporation in the Petition for Review filed with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 100468). | |||||