TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that municipalities and chartered cities in the Philippines only have the authority to reclaim “foreshore lands,” which are the areas between high and low tide marks, not submerged or offshore areas. This means Pasay City’s reclamation agreement with Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) was invalid because it covered submerged areas, which are part of the public domain and can only be reclaimed by the national government or its authorized entities. This decision protects public lands and ensures that municipalities do not overstep their authority in reclaiming areas that belong to the State.

Manila Bay’s Shores: Can Cities Claim More Than the Tide Allows?

This case revolves around the validity of a reclamation agreement between Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) for areas in Manila Bay. The core legal question is whether Republic Act No. 1899 (RA 1899) permits municipalities and chartered cities to reclaim submerged or offshore areas, or if their authority is limited to foreshore lands. The Republic of the Philippines challenged the agreement, arguing that it exceeded the scope of RA 1899 and encroached on areas that are part of the public domain.

The Republic’s argument rests on the assertion that there are no foreshore lands along the seaside of Pasay City, only submerged areas that are outside the commerce of man and part of the Manila Bay Beach Resort National Park. The Court of Appeals had previously sided with Pasay City and RREC, interpreting “foreshore land” broadly to include submerged areas. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that when the law is clear, there is no need for interpretation; only application. The Court referenced established legal definitions of “foreshore lands” as the area between high and low water marks, which are “alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide.”

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court stated that the Court of Appeals’ interpretation unduly stretched the meaning of “foreshore lands” beyond the intentment of the law. If Congress had intended to include submerged areas, it would have expressly stated so. The Court also reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Ponce v. Gomez, which applied a strict dictionary meaning to “foreshore lands” as used in RA 1899. The Court further stated that RA 5187 (the Public Works Act) is not amendatory to RA 1899, but is an Appropriations Act. Even the opinions of the Secretary of Justice are unavailing to rectify any mistake or omission in the law.

As the subject matter of Pasay City Ordinance No. 121, as amended by Ordinance No. 158, and the Agreement under attack, have been found to be outside the intendment and scope of RA 1899, and therefore ultra vires and null and void. Moreover, the Agreement was further compromised by the absence of a public bidding, which is required for such contracts. The Court also found a lack of evidence to support the claim that RREC had reclaimed 55 hectares, noting the absence of contracts, plans, specifications, or testimony to that effect. Architect Ruben M. Protacio, Architect and Managing partner of Leandro V. Locsin and partners, Architect and City Planner Manuel T. Mañoza, Jr. of Planning Resources and Operation System, Inc., Rose D. Cruz, Executive Assistant, Office of the President, from 1966 to 1970, and Dr. Lucrecia Kasilag, National Artist and member of CCP Advisory Committee, recounted on the witness stand that when the construction of the Main Building of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) began in 1966, the only surface land available was the site for the said building (TSN, Sept. 29, 1997, pages 8, 14 and 50), what could be seen in front of and behind it was all water (TSN, Sept. 29, 1997, pages 127-128).

The Court also rejected the Court of Appeals’ order to turn over several titled lots to Pasay City, noting that Pasay City and RREC never requested such a transfer in their original complaint. The affected lots were already titled in the names of Cultural Center of the Philippines and GSIS, respectively. The Supreme Court also stated that while Pasay City and RREC did not succeed in their undertaking to reclaim any area within subject reclamation project, it appearing that something compensable was accomplished by them, following the applicable provision of law and hearkening to the dictates of equity, that no one, not even the government, shall unjustly enrich oneself/itself at the expense of another, we believe; and so hold, that Pasay City and RREC should be paid for the said actual work done and dredge-fill poured in, worth P10,926,071.29, as verified by the former Ministry of Public Highways, and as claimed by RREC itself in its aforequoted letter dated June 25, 1981.

FAQs

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of laws governing the use and reclamation of public lands. It serves as a reminder that municipalities must operate within the bounds of their delegated authority and that any agreements exceeding those bounds are invalid. The decision also underscores the State’s role in protecting public lands and ensuring that their use aligns with national interests.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103882, November 25, 1998