Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. Nos. L-66075-76 July 5, 1990
EULOGIO AGUSTIN, HEIRS O !AL"OMERO LANGCA#, ARTURO !ALISI $
JUAN LANGCA#, petitioners,
vs.
INTERME"IATE APPELLATE COURT, MARIA MELA", TIMOTEO MELA", PA!LO
!INA#UG $ GERONIMA U!INA, respondents.
Antonio N. Laggui for petitioners.
Pedro R. Perez, Jr. for private respondents.

GRI%O-A&UINO, J.:
The a!a"an River separates the to#ns of Solana on the #est and Tu!ue!arao on the
east in the province of a!a"an. $ccordin! to the unrebutted testi%on" of Ro%eo
Ri!or, &eodetic 'n!ineer of the (ureau of )ands, in *+*+ the lands east of the river
#ere covered b" the Tu!ue!arao adastre. In *+,-, Ori!inal ertificate of Title No.
-./, #as issued for land east of the a!a"an River o#ned b" defendant0petitioner
'ulo!io $!ustin 1'2h. ,0$!ustin3. $s the "ears #ent b", the a!a"an River %oved
!raduall" east#ard, depositin! silt on the #estern ban4. The shiftin! of the river and
the siltation continued until *+56.
In *+-7, all lands #est of the river #ere included in the Solana adastre. $%on! these
occup"in! lands covered b" the Solana adastre #ere plaintiffs0private respondents,
na%el", Pablo (ina"u!, #ho has been in possession of )ots 88.+, /6/5, /6//, /6/6,
/6/+, /6/-, /66*, /66,, /668, /66., /66-, /6+* and /6+,, and Maria Melad, #ho
o#ns )ot 88-* 1'2h. 80(ina"u!9 '2h. (0Melad3. Pablo (ina"u! be!an his possession
in *+./. $n area of ei!ht 163 hectares #as planted to tobacco and corn #hile *,
hectares #ere over!ro#n #ith talahib 1'2h. 0* (ina"u!.3 (ina"u!:s ;o%estead
$pplication No. <0/+7-- over this land #as approved in *+-+ 1'2h. (0(ina"u!3.
(ina"u!:s possession #as reco!ni=ed in the decision in ivil ase No. *7* 1'2h. F0
(ina"u!3. On the other hand, as a result of ivil ase No. 8.80T, Macario Melad, the
predecessor0in0interest of Maria Melad and Ti%oteo Melad, #as issued Ori!inal
ertificate of Title No. P0-7,5 for )ot 88-* of ad. ,+8 on >une *, *+-5.
Throu!h the "ears, the a!a"an River eroded lands of the Tu!ue!arao adastre on its
eastern ban4 a%on! #hich #as defendant0petitioner 'ulo!io $!ustin:s )ot 6.-/ 1'2h.
'0Melad3, depositin! the alluviu% as accretion on the land possessed b" Pablo
(ina"u! on the #estern ban4.
;o#ever, in *+56, after a bi! flood, the a!a"an River chan!ed its course, returned to
its *+*+ bed, and, in the process, cut across the lands of Maria Melad, Ti%oteo Melad,
and the spouses Pablo (ina"u! and &eroni%a ?bina #hose lands #ere transferred on
the eastern, or Tu!ue!arao, side of the river. To cultivate those lots the" had to cross
the river. In $pril, *+5+, #hile the private respondents and their tenants #ere plantin!
corn on their lots located on the eastern side of the a!a"an River, the petitioners,
acco%panied b" the %a"or and so%e police%en of Tu!ue!arao, clai%ed the sa%e
lands as their o#n and drove a#a" the private respondents fro% the pre%ises. On
$pril ,*, *+/7, private respondents Maria Melad and Ti%oteo Melad filed a co%plaint
1ivil ase No. 8.80T3 to recover )ot No. 88-* #ith an area of - hectares and its 5.50
hectare accretion. On $pril ,., *+/7, private respondent Pablo (ina"u! filed a
separate co%plaint 1ivil ase No. 8..0T3 to recover his lots and their accretions.
On >une *5, *+/-, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of #hich
reads@
<;'R'FOR', pre%ises considered, Aud!%ent is hereb" %ade@
In ivil ase No. 8.80T, co%%andin! 'ulo!io $!ustin, &re!orio Tuliao, >acinto (uBuel
and Octavio (ancud, or an"bod" actin! as their representativeCsD or a!ents to vacate
)ot No. 88-* of Solana adastre to!ether #ith its accretion consistin! of portions of
)ots +.58, +.5, and +.5* of Tu!ue!arao adastre and for these defendants to
restore o#nership in favor of Maria Melad and Ti%oteo Melad #ho are the onl"
interested heirs of Macario Melad.
In ivil ase No. 8..0T, co%%andin! defendants >usto $dduru, $ndres Pastor, Teofilo
Ta!aca", Vicente a%ilan, Nicanor Mora, (aldo%ero a!uran!an, Do%in!o Euilan!,
esar abal=a, 'lias Macababbad, Titon! Macababbad, $rturo (alisi, >ose $llabun,
'ulo!io $!ustin, (anon! $Buino, >unior a%bri and >uan )an!oa", or an" of their
a!ents or representatives to vacate the )ots 88.+, /6/5, /6//, /6/6, /6/+, /6/-,
/66*, /66,, /668, /66., /66-, /6+* and /6+,, to!ether #ith its accretion and to
restore possession to plaintiffs Pablo (ina"u! and &eroni%a ?bina. <ithout
pronounce%ent as to da%a!es #hich #ere not properl" proven and to costs.
SO ORD'R'D. 1$s a%ended b" the order dated $u!ust *-, *+/-.3 1pp. ,.0,-, Rollo.3
Onl" defendant0petitioner 'ulo!io $!ustin appealed in ivil ase No. 8.80T, #hile in
ivil ase No. 8..0T, onl" defendants0petitioners 'ulo!io $!ustin, (aldo%ero
a!uran!an 1substituted b" his heir3, $rturo (alisi and >uan )an!ca" appealed. (ut
upon %otion of plaintiffs0private respondents, the trial court ordered the e2ecution
pendin! appeal of the Aud!%ent in ivil ase No. 8..0T a!ainst a!uran!an, (alisi
and )an!ca" on the !round that their appeal #as dilator" as the" had not presented
evidence at the trial 1Order dated $u!ust *-, *+/-3. On Nove%ber ,+, *+68, the
1
Inter%ediate $ppellate ourt rendered a decision affir%in! in toto the Aud!%ent of the
trial court, #ith costs a!ainst the defendants0appellants.
In their petition for revie# of that decision, the petitioners alle!e that the ourt of
$ppeals erred@
*. in declarin! that the land in Buestion had beco%e part of private respondents: estate
as a result of accretion9
,. in declarin! that the accretion to private respondents: estate #hich used to pertain to
petitioners: estate cannot preclude the private respondents fro% bein! the o#ners
thereof9 and
8. in declarin! that the o#nership of private respondents over the accretion is not
affected b" the sudden and abrupt chan!e in the course of the a!a"an River #hen it
reverted to its old bed
The petition is un%eritorious and %ust be denied.
The findin! of the ourt of $ppeals that there had been accretions to the lots of the
private respondents #ho did not lose the o#nership of such accretions even after the"
#ere separated fro% the principal lots b" the sudden chan!e of course of the river, is a
findin! of fact #hich is conclusive on this ourt. That findin! is supported b" $rt. .-/ of
the Ne# ivil ode #hich provides@
$rt. .-/. To the o#ners of lands adAoinin! the ban4s of rivers belon! the accretion
#hich the" !raduall" receive fro% the effects of the current of the #aters. 18553
$ccretion benefits a riparian o#ner #hen the follo#in! reBuisites are present@ 1*3 that
the deposit be !radual and i%perceptible9 1,3 that it resulted fro% the effects of the
current of the #ater9 and 183 that the land #here accretion ta4es place is adAacent to
the ban4 of a river 1Republic vs. $, *8, SR$ -*.3.
$ll these reBuisites of accretion are present in this case for, as the trial court found@
. . . a!a"an River did %ove "ear b" "ear fro% *+*+ to *+56 or for a period of .+
"ears. <ithin this period, the alluviu% 1sic3 deposited on the other side has beco%e
!reater in area than the ori!inal lands of the plaintiffs in both cases. Still the addition in
ever" "ear is i%perceptible in nature, one could not discern it but can be %easured
after the lapse of a certain ti%e. The testi%onial evidence in these cases that said
a!a"an River %oved east#ard "ear b" "ear is over#hel%in! as a!ainst the denial of
defendant 'ulo!io $!ustin alone. esar aronan, one ti%e %a"or of Solana, a!a"an,
said so. $rturo Ta!uian said so. Ti%oteo Melad said so. Francisco ?bina said so.
&eodetic 'n!ineer Ri!or i%pliedl" said so #hen he testified that #hen Solana
adastre #as e2ecuted in *+-7 it overlapped portions of Tu!ue!arao adastre
e2ecuted in *+*+. This could not have happened if that part of Tu!ue!arao adastre
#as not eroded b" the overflo# of the a!a"an River. These testi%onies cannot be
destro"ed b" the denials of Vicente auilan, Marcelo $!ustin and 'ulo!io $!ustin
alone . . . . 1p. ,/, Rollo.3
The appellate court confir%ed that the accretion on the #estern ban4 of the a!a"an
River had been !oin! on fro% *+*+ up to *+56 or for a period of .+ "ears. It #as
!radual and i%perceptible. Onl" #hen )ot No. 88-*, #ith an ori!inal area of - hectares
described in the free patent that #as issued to Macario Melad in >une *+-5, #as
resurve"ed in *+56 did it beco%e 4no#n that 5.5 hectares had been added to it. )ot
No. 88-*, covered b" a ho%estead patent issued in >une, *+-7 to Pablo (ina"u!,
!re# fro% its ori!inal area of *6 hectares, b" an additional -7 hectares throu!h
alluviu% as the a!a"an River !raduall" %oved to the east. These accretions belon!
to riparian o#ners upon #hose lands the alluvial deposits #ere %ade 1Ro2as vs.
Tuason, + Phil. .769 Director of )ands vs. Ri=al, 6/ Phil. 6753. The reason for this
principle is because, if lands borderin! on strea%s are e2posed to floods and other
da%a!e due to the destructive force of the #aters, and if b" virtue of la# the" are
subAect to encu%brances and various 4inds of ease%ents, it is onl" Aust that such ris4s
or dan!ers as %a" preAudice the o#ners thereof should in so%e #a" be co%pensated
b" the ri!ht of accretion 1ortes vs. it" of Manila, *7 Phil. -5/3.itc-asl
The private respondents: o#nership of the accretion to their lands #as not lost upon
the sudden and abrupt chan!e of the course of the a!a"an River in *+56 or *+5+
#hen it reverted to its old *+*+ bed, and separated or transferred said accretions to
the other side 1or eastern ban43 of the river. $rticles .-+ and .58 of the Ne# ivil ode
appl" to this situation.
$rt. .-+. <henever the current of a river, cree4 or torrent se!re!ates fro% an estate on
its ban4 a 4no#n portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the o#ner of the
land to #hich the se!re!ated portion belon!ed retains the o#nership of it, provided
that he re%oves the sa%e #ithin t#o "ears.
$rt. .58. <henever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leavin! a piece of
land or part thereof isolated, the o#ner of the land retains his o#nership. e also
retains it if a portion of land is separated fro! the estate b" the current. 1'%phasis
supplied3.
In the case at bar, the sudden chan!e of course of the a!a"an River as a result of a
stron! t"phoon in *+56 caused a portion of the lands of the private respondents to be
Fseparated fro% the estate b" the current.F The private respondents have retained the
o#nership of the portion that #as transferred b" avulsion to the other side of the river.
<;'R'FOR', the petition is denied for lac4 of %erit. The decision of the Inter%ediate
$ppellate ourt, no# ourt of $ppeals, is hereb" affir%ed. osts a!ainst the
petitioners.
SO ORD'R'D.
2

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen