Scribd
Upload
192 views2 pages

Cantoja v. Lim (G.R. No. 168386, March 29, 2010)

This case involves a dispute over a foreshore lease agreement (FLA) granted to Lucita Cantoja. Respondent Harry Lim protested, arguing the foreshore area adjoined his property, not Cantoja's. The DENR initially dismissed the protest but the Secretary later cancelled the FLA, finding it did adjoin Lim's land. The Court of Appeals also set aside the FLA, finding Cantoja misrepresented that the foreshore adjoined his property. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding based on maps that Lim's property was between Cantoja's and the foreshore, so Cantoja did not have legal access without passing through Lim's land. As the owner of the adjoining land, Lim

Uploaded by

Lorie Jean Udarbe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
192 views2 pages

Cantoja v. Lim (G.R. No. 168386, March 29, 2010)

This case involves a dispute over a foreshore lease agreement (FLA) granted to Lucita Cantoja. Respondent Harry Lim protested, arguing the foreshore area adjoined his property, not Cantoja's. The DENR initially dismissed the protest but the Secretary later cancelled the FLA, finding it did adjoin Lim's land. The Court of Appeals also set aside the FLA, finding Cantoja misrepresented that the foreshore adjoined his property. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding based on maps that Lim's property was between Cantoja's and the foreshore, so Cantoja did not have legal access without passing through Lim's land. As the owner of the adjoining land, Lim

Uploaded by

Lorie Jean Udarbe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

168386, March 29, 2010


LUCITA A. CANTOJA, Petitioner,
vs.
HARRY S. LIM, Respondent.
CARPIO, Acting C.J.:

FACTS:
Roberto Cantoja Sr. was granted a Foreshore Lease agreement. It was protested by respondent Lim
alleging that the subject foreshore area is not adjoined with Cantoja’s property. The ocular inspection
found that Cantoja was in actual possession of the foreshore area.

DENR Director dismissed respondent’s protest and held that the subject foreshore land is separate and
distinct from Lim’s land.

The DENR secretary cancelled the FLA awarded to Cantoja on the ground that subject area adjoins the
property of Lim. The secretary, however, reinstated the FLA.

Office of the President: AFFIRMED on the ground that the subject area is partly foreshore and partly
river bed and therefore inalienable which could not be subject of a valid patent or title.

CA: SET ASIDE and cancelled the FLA. Cantoja committed fraud when he misrepresented his application
for lease when he declared that his lot adjoins the foreshore area (as riparian or littoral owner). Hence
this petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45).

ISSUE: WON the subject foreshore area adjoins the property of Cantoja.

HELD: NO.
Respondent Lim already owned the land adjacent to the foreshore land prior to the grant of the FLA to
Cantoja. The sketch plan clearly shows that Lim’s property is in between the foreshore land and
Cantoja’s land.

Hence, Cantoja would not have legal access to the foreshore area without passing thru the property of
Lim.

Being the owner of the land adjoining the foreshore area, respondent is the riparian or littoral owner
who has preferential right to lease the foreshore area as provided under paragraph 32 of the Lands
Administrative Order.
Preference of Riparian Owner. – The owner of the property adjoining foreshore lands, marshy
lands or lands covered with water bordering upon shores or banks of navigable lakes or rivers,
shall be given preference to apply for such lands adjoining his property as may not be needed
for the public service, subject to the laws and regulations governing lands of this nature,
provided that he applies therefor within sixty (60) days from the date he receives a
communication from the Director of Lands advising him of his preferential right.

Riparian owner (Under Land Admin. Order)


Riparian owner – a person who owns land situated on the bank of a river
Littoral owner – owner of land bordering the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal waters.
Reason for the Grant (Santulan v. Executive Secretary)
Article 4 Spanish Law of Waters, 1866 – recognizes the preferential right of the littoral owner to the
foreshore land formed by accretions or alluvial deposits due to the action of the sea. (Not the same with
Art. 457 of the NCC – because you don’t have to ask for the declaration of the government because the
riparian owner becomes ipso facto/jure the owner of the accretion – Hence, Art. 457 is more supreme.

This reason is the same as the justification for giving accretions to the riparian owner – accretion
compensates the riparian owner for the diminutions which his land suffers by reason of the destructive
force of the waters.

For littoral lands – he who loses by the encroachments of the sea should gain by its recession.

You might also like