I. The recurring coastal conflict

Across Philippine coasts, a familiar dispute arises when a private landholder, resort, aquaculture operator, or developer fences off an area long used by municipal fisherfolk for landing, beaching, docking, and loading small boats (e.g., bancas). The fence is often justified as “private property” protection or “security,” but it may in fact occupy foreshore land, beach, or the mandatory shoreline easement that the law keeps open for public use—especially for navigation and fishing.

The legality of a fence (and the available remedies) depends on one core question:

Where exactly is the fence located relative to the shoreline and legal easements—and what authority, if any, supports it?

This article lays out the governing Philippine legal framework, how to evaluate “illegal fencing” on coasts, and the practical and legal remedies available to fisherfolk and communities.

II. Key coastal concepts and definitions

1) Shore, foreshore, beach, and the “highest tide line”

Philippine law distinguishes coastal zones in ways that matter for ownership and access:

Shore / shoreline (practical legal marker): commonly understood as the strip affected by the sea up to the line reached by the highest tide (often used as a reference point for easements and public dominion concepts).
Foreshore: the part of the shore alternately covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the tide (between high tide and low tide). This is typically treated as part of the public domain.
Beach: the sandy or pebbly portion of the shore; in practice, beaches are closely associated with foreshore/public dominion treatment.
Coastal easement zone: a legally mandated strip along shores kept for public use (navigation, fishing, salvage), regardless of adjacent private ownership.

Because fences tend to be installed without surveyed reference to tide lines or easement measurements, disputes often turn on actual location—not mere claims of ownership.

2) Municipal waters and fisherfolk

Under fisheries and local government frameworks, municipal fisherfolk are the small-scale fishers recognized and typically registered by LGUs for preferential access to municipal waters and related fishery benefits. “Docking/landing” is part of the practical chain of access to fishing and livelihood.

III. Constitutional and statutory foundations

A. The Constitution: State ownership, social justice, and fisherfolk protection

Three constitutional pillars shape foreshore access disputes:

State ownership of natural resources (including waters and related lands of the public domain) The Constitution declares that natural resources are owned by the State and managed in the national interest (Art. XII, Sec. 2).
Protection of subsistence/municipal fisherfolk The Constitution explicitly directs the State to protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially local communities, to the preferential use of communal marine and fishing resources and to provide support (Art. XIII, Sec. 7).
Right to a balanced and healthful ecology While fencing alone is not always “environmental damage,” coastal enclosure frequently accompanies illegal filling, mangrove cutting, or pollution—triggering the constitutional environmental right (Art. II, Sec. 16) and environmental procedural remedies.

B. Civil Code: property of public dominion and the shoreline easement

1) Foreshore and shore as public dominion

The Civil Code classifies certain properties as property of public dominion, intended for public use and outside ordinary private commerce (Civil Code, Art. 420). Shores and related areas associated with navigation and public use are classically treated within this domain.

Core consequence: Property of public dominion is generally not privately ownable and cannot be acquired by prescription while it retains that character.

2) The shoreline easement for public use (the “3–20–40 rule”)

A central, often-misunderstood rule is the Civil Code’s easement of public use along:

banks of rivers and streams, and
shores of seas and lakes

Civil Code, Art. 638 imposes an easement zone measured inland from the shore/bank:

3 meters in urban areas
20 meters in agricultural areas
40 meters in forest areas

Purpose: navigation, floatage, fishing, and salvage. This is a legally reserved public-use corridor.

Practical meaning: Even if a private title exists inland, fencing that blocks lawful public-use activities within this easement zone can be unlawful.

C. Water Code (PD 1067): easements and protection of water zones

The Water Code reinforces state control and regulatory authority over waters and easements. Coastal disputes often involve Water Code enforcement in tandem with Civil Code easement principles, especially where structures obstruct passage, affect water flow, or occupy regulated strips.

D. Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141): foreshore lands and government disposition

Foreshore lands are typically treated as public lands. The State may allow lease or permit arrangements for specific uses (e.g., wharves, mariculture support facilities), but such arrangements:

do not automatically convert foreshore into private property; and
are commonly subject to conditions and public-use limitations.

Administration of public lands and foreshore matters generally falls under the DENR through its land management offices.

E. Fisheries law: municipal fisherfolk interests and local management

The Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550, as amended by RA 10654) anchors:

preferential rights of municipal fisherfolk in municipal waters,
LGU responsibility for fisheries management and enforcement (often with Bantay Dagat and FARMCs),
regulation of structures or activities that interfere with municipal fisheries management.

While the Fisheries Code is not a general “beach access” statute, fencing that effectively blocks municipal fishing operations or enables unlawful exclusion often becomes a fisheries enforcement issue—especially if paired with illegal structures, unlawful mariculture enclosures, or obstruction of navigation routes used by small boats.

F. Local Government Code (RA 7160): local police power, zoning, permitting, fisheries management

LGUs matter enormously in these disputes because they control:

building permits (through local building officials),
zoning and land use (CLUP and ordinances),
local enforcement and nuisance abatement powers,
fisheries management within municipal waters (subject to national law),
barangay-level dispute mechanisms and peace-and-order interventions.

A fence that lacks permits, violates zoning/setbacks/easements, or blocks a public passage can be addressed through LGU enforcement even before court action.

IV. When a fence becomes illegal: the main legal theories

Illegal fencing cases usually fit one (or several) of the following categories.

Category 1: The fence sits on foreshore/public dominion land

If the fence occupies foreshore or other public dominion coastal land, it is vulnerable to being treated as:

unlawful occupation of public land, and/or
an illegal structure subject to removal by competent authorities.

Key idea: A private person generally cannot “privatize” foreshore by fencing it, regardless of how long it has been used or claimed.

Category 2: The fence is within the shoreline easement (Art. 638)

Even where the adjacent owner has a Torrens title inland, the shoreline easement is a legal burden imposed in the public interest. Fences that block fishing-related passage, beaching, navigation access, or salvage operations within the easement zone can be treated as unlawful obstruction of the easement.

Important nuance: The easement is for specific public-interest purposes (navigation, fishing, salvage, floatage). It is not automatically a general “picnic” or “private beach party” entitlement. But for fisherfolk docking/landing linked to fishing and navigation, it is directly relevant.

Category 3: The fence blocks a public road, easement, or dedicated access path to the shore

Sometimes the contested issue is not only the shore strip, but the route from the community to the shore. A fence may be illegal if it blocks:

a barangay/municipal road,
a historically established public pathway that has been recognized by government acts (e.g., road classification, maintenance, inclusion in plans),
an existing recorded easement (right-of-way).

Hard truth in many disputes: If the fence is entirely on private land outside the coastal easement zone and does not block a recognized public road/easement, the public does not automatically acquire a private right-of-way just because the path has been used for years. Under Civil Code doctrine, many right-of-way easements are discontinuous and generally not acquired by prescription; lawful access may then require government action (e.g., negotiated access, local ordinance solutions, or expropriation for a public landing site).

Category 4: The fence supports or hides other unlawful coastal acts

Fencing often accompanies:

illegal reclamation/filling,
mangrove cutting or conversion,
illegal fish pens/corrals or enclosures,
water pollution, or
construction of docks/wharves without permits.

In those cases, the fence becomes part of a broader unlawful coastal activity that triggers environmental and fisheries enforcement and stronger judicial remedies.

V. Permits and authority: what lawful coastal occupation typically requires

A dock, wharf, or coastal facility can implicate multiple regulatory layers.toggle: absence of one required approval can make the structure (and any fence securing it) vulnerable.

Common approvals that may be relevant depending on location and scale:

DENR authority for occupation/use of foreshore or public land (e.g., foreshore lease/permit arrangements).
LGU building permits and zoning compliance.
Environmental compliance where required (e.g., ECC under the environmental impact statement system for covered projects).
Philippine Coast Guard clearances relating to navigation safety and maritime obstructions (particularly if the structure intrudes into navigable waters or poses hazards).
PPA/MARINA/other port authorities if within port zones or regulated maritime areas.

A person claiming “private rights” should be able to show the paper trail—especially where the “docking area” is actually part of foreshore or public shore.

VI. Remedies for fisherfolk and communities

Remedies are best approached in parallel tracks: documentation, local enforcement, national agency action, and judicial relief where needed.

A. Documentation and immediate protective steps

Effective remedies depend on credible, location-specific evidence:

Map the fence relative to the shore

Photos/videos showing the fence line, gates, “private property” signs, and relationship to the water at different tide levels.
GPS-tagged points if possible.
Sketch map with community landmarks.

Establish community use and purpose

Affidavits from fisherfolk regarding longstanding use as landing/docking area.
Proof the use is tied to fishing/navigation (not merely recreation).

Check land and permit status

Copy of the alleged owner’s title (if any) and technical description.
Inquire about foreshore lease/permit status and building permits via LGU and DENR channels.
Identify whether the area is within an LGU-designated or community-recognized landing site.

Avoid self-help escalation Removing fences by force invites criminal exposure (damage to property, trespass allegations) and heightens conflict. Formal enforcement is generally safer and more sustainable.

B. Barangay and LGU remedies (often the fastest first responders)

1) Barangay action and dispute mechanisms

Barangay officials can mediate, document community complaints, and coordinate with municipal enforcement.
Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation may apply to certain disputes, but it is not a universal prerequisite—especially where urgent injunctive relief or government enforcement is required.

2) LGU enforcement: permitting, zoning, and nuisance abatement

A fence or dock may be attacked locally as:

constructed without permits,
violating zoning or setback/easement rules,
constituting a nuisance that obstructs public passage or safety.

Possible LGU actions:

inspection orders,
stop-work orders (if ongoing construction),
notices of violation and administrative penalties,
demolition/removal proceedings for illegal structures (subject to due process).

3) Fisheries governance: FARMCs and Bantay Dagat

Municipal/Barangay FARMCs can:

elevate the issue as a municipal fisheries access and livelihood matter,
recommend municipal action to protect landing sites,
support enforcement against illegal coastal enclosures tied to fisheries violations.

C. DENR remedies: foreshore/public land enforcement

Where the fence is on foreshore or public land, the DENR (through its land management offices and field units) is a principal agency for:

investigating unlawful occupation,
verifying land classification and foreshore boundaries,
enforcing lease/permit conditions (if any),
ordering removal of illegal structures on public land,
pursuing cancellation of improper foreshore permits/leases.

This path is especially strong when the fence is clearly on the shore/foreshore or within the legal easement strip.

D. Philippine Coast Guard and maritime safety remedies

If the fencing/dock:

obstructs navigation routes for small boats,
creates hazards to safe passage,
extends into navigable waters unlawfully,

then maritime safety enforcement and navigational obstruction mechanisms become relevant. The Coast Guard’s involvement is particularly practical where the dispute implicates actual waterborne passage and safety.

E. Criminal-law options (when facts support)

Depending on facts, criminal complaints may be viable—especially when there is:

obstruction of navigation,
threats/violence against fisherfolk,
unlawful detention or coercion at the fence line,
destruction of boats or gear,
fencing that supports unlawful environmental acts.

Potential legal hooks include:

Revised Penal Code provisions on obstruction to navigation (where applicable to actual navigational obstruction),
coercion or threats (if fisherfolk are forcibly prevented),
malicious mischief (if boats/gear are damaged),
violations of special laws and local ordinances related to illegal structures, foreshore occupation, or environmental damage.

Criminal remedies are strongest when the fencing is paired with force, intimidation, or clear navigational obstruction and when the location is unquestionably within public domains/easements.

F. Civil actions: injunction, nuisance abatement, and damages

Civil litigation becomes appropriate when administrative enforcement stalls or when urgent court orders are needed.

Common civil approaches:

Injunction / TRO To restrain continued obstruction and compel restoration of access pending full resolution.
Abatement of nuisance A fence blocking a public easement or public passage can be framed as a public nuisance. Suits may be brought by proper parties, and government participation can be important for standing and enforcement.
Actions involving easement enforcement Where the Art. 638 easement is obstructed, litigation can seek recognition of the public-use easement and removal of obstructions.
Damages If fisherfolk can prove actual, quantifiable losses (missed fishing days, spoiled catch due to inability to land, damage to boats forced into unsafe landing), damages may be claimed—though proving and quantifying these losses is evidentiary work.

G. Environmental judicial remedies: Writ of Kalikasan, TEPO, Continuing Mandamus

When fencing is connected to environmental harm (illegal filling, mangrove cutting, pollution, habitat destruction), the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) provide powerful tools:

Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) Rapid interim relief to stop harmful acts.
Writ of Continuing Mandamus To compel government agencies to perform legal duties over time (useful against agency inaction in enforcing foreshore/easement/environmental laws).
Writ of Kalikasan Available for environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice life, health, or property of inhabitants in at least two cities/provinces (scope-dependent; not every fence dispute qualifies).

These remedies are particularly effective where the “fence dispute” is actually the surface of a broader illegal coastal alteration.

H. Accountability remedies against officials: Ombudsman and administrative cases

Where illegal fencing persists due to:

unlawful issuance of permits,
refusal to enforce clear easement/public land rules,
tolerance of encroachment,

complaints may be brought through administrative channels, including the Office of the Ombudsman, depending on the conduct and evidence.

VII. A practical legal test: diagnosing the case quickly

1) If the fence is on foreshore or within the Art. 638 easement

Legal posture: Strong. Most effective remedies: LGU enforcement + DENR action + injunctive relief if needed. Best evidence: Measured location, tide-line references, photos showing fence within the shore strip, proof of fishing/navigation use.

2) If the fence is inland on private titled land, but blocks the only route to the shore

Legal posture: Mixed; depends on whether the route is a public road/pathway or legally recognized access. Most effective remedies: Verify public road status; LGU road records; possible expropriation/creation of public access; negotiated access; establishment of official landing site. Best evidence: LGU plans, road classifications, proof of LGU maintenance, ordinances, or other official recognition of the pathway.

3) If the fence is tied to unpermitted construction or environmental harm

Legal posture: Stronger with multiple violations. Most effective remedies: Environmental case tools (TEPO/continuing mandamus), DENR and LGU enforcement, Coast Guard for navigational hazards. Best evidence: Construction footprints, filling activity, mangrove loss, discharge, permit absence.

VIII. Limits and balancing: private rights vs. public coastal use

Philippine law does recognize private property rights along the coast—but those rights are not absolute:

Private ownership inland does not erase the public dominion character of foreshore and does not negate the shoreline easement imposed for navigation/fishing/salvage.
Even a government lease/permit to use foreshore is typically conditional and does not automatically authorize exclusion that defeats public easement purposes or navigational safety.
Public coastal access is not a license for disorder or permanent occupation; the easement is tied to specific public-interest purposes and must be exercised reasonably.

In fisherfolk docking disputes, the public-interest purpose is usually direct: navigation and fishing livelihood, which are at the heart of the constitutional and civil-law protections.

IX. Conclusion

Illegal fencing of a boat docking/landing area in the Philippines is most clearly actionable when the fence occupies foreshore/public dominion land or blocks the mandatory shoreline easement reserved for navigation and fishing under Civil Code Article 638. Remedies are multi-layered: rapid local enforcement through LGUs and fisheries governance structures; public land and foreshore enforcement through the DENR; maritime safety interventions through the Coast Guard; and, when needed, court actions for injunction, nuisance abatement, and environmental writs—especially where fencing is part of broader unlawful coastal alteration. Where the dispute is really about inland access across private land outside the easement zone, the legally sustainable solutions tend to depend on public road recognition, official landing-site creation, negotiated access, or expropriation for public use, rather than informal long use alone.