G.R. No.

100709 November 14, 1997

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represe!e" b# !$e %IRECTOR OF L&N%S, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
&PPE&LS, 'OSEFIN& L. (OR&TO, SPOUSES NENIT& CO )" &NTONIO *UIL&T&N &N% THE REGISTER
OF %EE%S OF *UE+ON PRO,INCE, respondents.
Facts:
Morato filed a Free Patent Application on a parcel of land and the patent was approved and the Register of
Deeds with OCT. Both the free patent and the title specifically andate that the land shall not
!e alienated nor encumbered within five years fro the date of the iss"ance of the patent. District #and Officer in
#"cena City cond"cted an investigation and it was esta!lished that the s"!$ect land is a portion of the Cala"ag Bay
and not s"ita!le to vegetation. Morato ortgaged the property to respondents %"ilatan and Advinc"la. Petitioner filed
an aended coplaint against respondents and the Register of Deeds of %"e&on for the cancellation of title and
reversion of a parcel of land to the p"!lic doain, s"!$ect of a free patent in favor of respondent Morato, on the
gro"nds that the land is a foreshore land and was ortgaged and leased within the five'year prohi!itory period. After
trial, the lower co"rt rendered a decision disissing petitioner(s coplaint. )n finding for private respondents, the
lower co"rt r"led that there was no violation of the *'year period !an against alienating or enc"!ering the land,
!eca"se the land was erely leased and not alienated. )t also fo"nd that the ortgage to %"ilatan covered only the
iproveent and not the land itself. the Co"rt of Appeals affired the decision of the trial co"rt.
Issue/s:
WON the lease and/or mortgage of a portion of a realty acquired through free patent constitute
sufficient ground for the nullification of such land grant.
WON property revert to the State once it is invaded by the sea and thus becomes foreshore land.
eld:
!espondent "orato cannot fully use or en#oy the land during the duration of the lease contract. $his
restriction on the en#oyment of her property sufficiently meets the definition of an encumbrance under
Section %%& of the 'ublic (and )ct* because such contract +impairs the use of the property+ by the grantee.
In a contract of lease ,hich is consensual* bilateral* onerous and commutative* the o,ner temporarily
grants the use of his or her property to another ,ho underta-es to pay rent therefor. .uring the term of the
lease* the grantee of the patent cannot en#oy the beneficial use of the land leased. )s already observed*
the 'ublic (and )ct does not permit a grantee of a free patent from encumbering any portion of such land.
Such encumbrance is a ground for the nullification of the a,ard. /ven if only part of the property has been
sold or alienated ,ithin the prohibited period of five years from the issuance of the patent* such alienation
is a sufficient cause for the reversion of the ,hole estate to the State. )s a condition for the grant of a free
patent to an applicant* the la, requires that the land should not be encumbered* sold or alienated ,ithin
five years from the issuance of the patent. $he sale or the alienation of part of the homestead violates that
condition.
$he application for a free patent ,as made in %012. From the undisputed factual findings of the
3ourt of )ppeals* ho,ever* the land has since become foreshore. )ccordingly* it can no longer be sub#ect
of a free patent under the 'ublic (and )ct. When the sea moved to,ards the estate and the tide invaded it*
the invaded property became foreshore land and passed to the realm of the public domain. $he sub#ect
land in this case* being foreshore land* should therefore be returned to the public domain.