Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17652 June 30, 1962
IGNACIO GRANE, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
!ON. COURT O" APPEALS, OMINGO CALALUNG, #n$ ESTE%AN
CALALUNG, respondents.
Bartolome Guirao and Antonio M. Orara for petitioners.
Gonzales and Fernandez for respondents.
%ARRERA, J.:
This is an appeal taken by petitioners !nacio, Eulo!ia, Alfonso, Eulalia, and "ofia
#rande, fro$ the decision of the Court of Appeals %CA&#.R. No. '()*+&R, reversin!
that of the Court of -irst nstance of sabela %Civil Case No. )).),, and dis$issin!
petitioners/ action a!ainst respondents 0o$in!o and Esteban Calalun!, to 1uiet title to
and recover possession of a parcel of land alle!edly occupied by the latter 2ithout
petitioners/ consent.
The facts of the case, 2hich are undisputed, briefly are3 Petitioners are the o2ners of a
parcel of land, 2ith an area of 4.(54' hectares, located at barrio Ra!an, $unicipality of
Ma!saysay %for$erly Tu$auini,, province of sabela, by inheritance fro$ their
deceased $other Patricia An!ui %2ho inherited it fro$ her parents sidro An!ui and
Ana 6ope7, in 2hose na$e said land appears re!istered, as sho2n by 8ri!inal
Certificate of Title No. '+9', issued on :une +, )+4;,. "aid property is identified as 6ot
No. ), Plan P"<&944;'. =hen it 2as surveyed for purposes of re!istration so$eti$e
in )+45, its northeastern boundary 2as the Ca!ayan River %the sa$e boundary stated
in the title,. "ince then, and for $any years thereafter, a !radual accretion on the
northeastern side took place, by action of the current of the Ca!ayan River, so $uch
so, that by )+(9, the bank thereof had receded to a distance of about )5( $eters fro$
its ori!inal site, and an alluvial deposit of )+,+*; s1uare $eters %).++*; hectares,,
$ore or less, had been added to the re!istered area %E>h. C&),.
8n :anuary '(, )+(9, petitioners instituted the present action in the Court of -irst
nstance of sabela a!ainst respondents, to 1uiet title to said portion %)+,+*; s1uare
$eters, for$ed by accretion, alle!in! in their co$plaint %docketed as Civil Case No.
)).), that they and their predecessors&in&interest, 2ere for$erly in peaceful and
continuous possession thereof, until "epte$ber, )+;9, 2hen respondents entered
upon the land under clai$ of o2nership. Petitioners also asked for da$a!es
correspondin! to the value of the fruits of the land as 2ell as attorney/s fees and costs.
n their ans2er %dated -ebruary )9, )+(9,, respondents clai$ o2nership in
the$selves, assertin! that they have been in continuous, open, and undisturbed
possession of said portion, since prior to the year )+44 to the present.
After trial, the Court of -irst nstance of sabela, on May ;, )+(+, rendered a decision
ad?ud!in! the o2nership of the portion in 1uestion to petitioners, and orderin!
respondents to vacate the pre$ises and deliver possession thereof to petitioners, and
to pay to the latter P'(5.55 as da$a!es and costs. "aid decision, in part, reads3
t is ad$itted by the parties that the land involved in this action 2as for$ed by
the !radual deposit of alluviu$ brou!ht about by the action of the Ca!ayan
River, a navi!able river. =e are inclined to believe that the accretion 2as
for$ed on the northeastern side of the land covered by 8ri!inal Certificate of
Title No. '+9' after the survey of the re!istered land in )+4), because the
surveyors found out that the northeastern boundary of the land surveyed by
the$ 2as the Ca!ayan River, and not the land in 1uestion. =hich is indicative
of the fact that the accretion has not yet started or be!un in )+4). And, as
declared by Pedro 6a$an, defendant 2itness and the boundary o2ner on the
north2est of the re!istered land of the plaintiffs, the accretion 2as a little
$ore than one hectare, includin! the stony portion, in )+;5 or )+;).
Therefore, the declarations of the defendant 0o$in!o Calalun! and his
2itness, @icente C. Bacani, to the effect that the land in 1uestion 2as for$ed
by accretion since )+44 do not only contradict the testi$ony of defendants/
2itness Pedro 6a$an, but could not overthro2 the incontestable fact that the
accretion 2ith an area of ; hectare $ore or less, 2as for$ed in )+;9, reason
for 2hich, it 2as only declared in that sa$e year for ta>ation purposes by the
defendants under Ta> 0ec. No. '(. %E>h. A'A, 2hen they entered upon the
land. =e could not !ive credence to defendants/ assertion that Ta> 0ec. No.
'(. %E>h. A'A, cancelled Ta> 0ee. No. '9''* %E>h. A)A,, because E>h. A'A
says that Ata> under this declaration be!ins 2ith the year )+;9. But, the fact
that defendants declared the land for ta>ation purposes since )+;9, does not
$ean that they beco$e the o2ner of the land by $ere occupancy, for it is a
ne2 provision of the Ne2 Civil Code that o2nership of a piece of land cannot
be ac1uired by occupation %Art. .);, Ne2 Civil Code,. The land in 1uestion
bein! an accretion to the $other or re!istered land of the plaintiffs, the
accretion belon!s to the plaintiffs %Art. ;(., Ne2 Civil CodeB Art. 4**, 8ld Civil
Code,. Assu$in! ar!uendo, that the accretion has been occupied by the
defendants since )+;9, or earlier, is of no $o$ent, because the la2 does not
re1uire any act of possession on the part of the o2ner of the riparian o2ner,
fro$ the $o$ent the deposit beco$es $anifest %Ro>as v. Tuason, + Phil.
;59B Corte7 v. City of Manila, )5 Phil. (*.,. -urther, no act of appropriation on
the part of the reparian o2ner is necessary, in order to ac1uire o2nership of
the alluvial for$ation, as the la2 does not re1uire the sa$e %4 Manresa, C.C.,
pp. 4')&4'*,.
This brin!s us no2 to the deter$ination of 2hether the defendants, !rantin!
that they have been in possession of the alluviu$ since )+;9, could have
ac1uired the property by prescription. Assu$in! that they occupied the land in
"epte$ber, )+;9, but considerin! that the action 2as co$$enced on
:anuary '(, )+(9, they have not been in possession of the land for ten %)5,
1
yearsB hence, they could not have ac1uired the land by ordinary prescription
%Arts. ))4; and ))49, Ne2 Civil Code,. Moreover, as the alluviu$ is, by la2,
part and parcel of the re!istered property, the sa$e $ay be considered as
re!istered property, 2ithin the $eanin! of "ection ;* of Act No. ;+*3 and,
therefore, it could not be ac1uired by prescription or adverse possession by
another person.
<nsatisfied, respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, 2hich rendered, on
"epte$ber );, )+*5, the decision adverted to at the be!innin! of this opinion, partly
statin!3
That the area in controversy has been for$ed throu!h a !radual process of
alluviu$, 2hich started in the early thirties, is a fact conclusively established
by the evidence for both parties. By la2, therefore, unless so$e superior title
has supervened, it should properly belon! to the riparian o2ners, specifically
in accordance 2ith the rule of natural accession in Article 4** of the old Civil
Code %no2 Article ;(.,, 2hich provides that Ato the o2ner of lands ad?oinin!
the banks of rivers, belon!s the accretion 2hich they !radually receive fro$
the effects of the current of the 2aters.A The defendants, ho2ever, contend
that they have ac1uired o2nership throu!h prescription. This contention
poses the real issue in this case. The Courta quo, has resolved it in favor of
the plaintiffs, on t2o !rounds3 -irst, since by accession, the land in 1uestion
pertains to the ori!inal estate, and since in this instance the ori!inal estate is
re!istered, the accretion, conse1uently, falls 2ithin the purvie2 of "ection ;*
of Act No. ;+*, 2hich states that Ano title to re!istered land in dero!ation to
that of the re!istered o2ner shall be ac1uired by prescription or adverse
possessionAB and, second, the adverse possession of the defendant be!an
only in the $onth of "epte$ber, )+;9, or less than the )5&year period
re1uired for prescription before the present action 2as instituted.
As a le!al proposition, the first !round relied upon by the trial court, is not
1uite correct. An accretion to re!istered land, 2hile declared by specific
provision of the Civil Code to belon! to the o2ner of the land as a natural
accession thereof, does not ipso jure beco$e entitled to the protection of the
rule of i$prescriptibility of title established by the 6and Re!istration Act. "uch
protection does not e>tend beyond the area !iven and described in the
certificate. To hold other2ise, 2ould be productive of confusion. t 2ould
virtually deprive the title, and the technical description of the land !iven
therein, of their character of conclusiveness as to the identity and area of the
land that is re!istered. :ust as the "upre$e Court, albeit in a ne!ative
$anner, has stated that re!istration does not protect the riparian o2ner
a!ainst the erosion of the area of his land throu!h !radual chan!es in the
course of the ad?oinin! strea$ %Payatas Estate 0evelop$ent Co. v. Tuason,
(4 Phil. ((,, so re!istration does not entitle hi$ to all the ri!hts conferred by
6and Re!istration Act, in so far as the area added by accretion is concerned.
=hat ri!hts he has, are declared not by said Act, but by the provisions of the
Civil Code on accession3 and these provisions do not preclude ac1uisition of
the addition area by another person throu!h prescription. This Court has held
as $uch in the case of Galindez, et al. v. Baguisa, et al., CA&#.R. No. )+';+&
R, :uly )., )+(+.
=e no2 proposed to revie2 the second !round relied upon by the trial court,
re!ardin! the len!th of ti$e that the defendants have been in possession.
0o$in!o Calalun! testified that he occupied the land in 1uestion for the first
ti$e in )+4;, not in )+;9 as clai$ed by the plaintiffs. The area under
occupancy !radually increased as the years 2ent by. n )+;*, he declared the
land for purposes of ta>ation %E>hibit ),. This ta> declaration 2as superseded
in )+;9 by another %E>hibit ',, after the na$e of the $unicipality 2herein it is
located 2as chan!ed fro$ Tu$auini to Ma!saysay. Calalun!/s testi$ony is
corroborated by t2o 2itnesses, both o2ners of properties nearby. Pedro
6a$an, .' years of a!e, 2ho 2as Municipal president of Tu$auini for three
ter$s, said that the land in 1uestion ad?oins his o2n on the south, and that
since )+;5 or )+(), he has al2ays kno2n it to be in the peaceful possession
of the defendants. @icente C. Bacani testified to the sa$e effect, althou!h, he
said that the defendants/ possession started so$eti$e in )+44 or )+4;. The
area thereof, he said, 2as then less than one hectare.
=e find the testi$ony of the said 2itnesses entitled to $uch !reater 2ei!ht
and credence than that of the plaintiff Pedro #rande and his lone 2itness,
6aureana Rodri!ue7. The first stated that the defendants occupied the land in
1uestion only in )+;9B that he called the latter/s attention to the fact that the
land 2as his, but the defendants, in turn, clai$ed that they 2ere the o2ners,
that the plaintiffs did not file an action until )+(9, because it 2as only then
that they 2ere able to obtain the certificate of title fro$ the surveyor, 0o$in!o
ParlanB and that they never declared the land in 1uestion for ta>ation
purposes or paid the ta>es thereon. Pedro #rande ad$itted that the
defendants had the said land surveyed in April, )+(9, and that he tried to stop
it, not because he clai$ed the accretion for hi$self and his co&plaintiffs, but
because the survey included a portion of the property covered by their title.
This last fact is conceded by the defendants 2ho, accordin!ly, relin1uished
their possession to the part thus included, containin! an area of so$e ;(9
s1uare $eters.1wp!1."#t
The oral evidence for the defendants concernin! the period of their
possession C fro$ )+44 to )+(9 C is not only preponderant in itself, but is,
$oreover, supported by the fact that it is they and not the plaintiffs 2ho
declared the disputed property for ta>ation, and by the additional
circu$stance that if the plaintiff had really been in prior possession and 2ere
deprived thereof in )+;9, they 2ould have i$$ediately taken steps to recover
the sa$e. The e>cuse they !ave for not doin! so, na$ely, that they did not
receive their copy of the certificate of title to their property until )+(9 for lack
of funds to pay the fees of the surveyor 0o$in!o Parlan, is too fli$sy to $erit
any serious consideration. The pay$ent of the surveyor/s fees had nothin! to
do 2ith their ri!ht to obtain a copy of the certificate. Besides, it 2as not
necessary for the$ to have it in their hands, in order to file an action to
recover the land 2hich 2as le!ally theirs by accession and of 2hich, as they
alle!e, they had been ille!ally deprived by the defendants. =e are convinced,
2
upon consideration of the evidence, that the latter, 2ere really in possession
since )+4;, i$$ediately after the process of alluvion started, and that the
plaintiffs 2oke up to their ri!hts only 2hen they received their copy of the title
in )+(9. By then, ho2ever, prescription had already supervened in favor of
the defendants.
t is this decision of the Court of Appeals 2hich petitioners seek to be revie2ed by us.
The sole issue for resolution in this case is 2hether respondents have ac1uired the
alluvial property in 1uestion throu!h prescription.
There can be no dispute that both under Article ;(. of the Ne2 Civil Code and Article
4** of the old, petitioners are the la2ful o2ners of said alluvial property, as they are
the re!istered o2ners of the land 2hich it ad?oins. The 1uestion is 2hether the
accretion beco$es auto$atically re!istered land ?ust because the lot 2hich receives it
is covered by a Torrens title thereby $akin! the alluvial property i$prescriptible. =e
a!ree 2ith the Court of Appeals that it does not, ?ust as an unre!istered land
purchased by the re!istered o2ner of the ad?oinin! land does not, by e>tension,
beco$e ipso fa$to re!istered land. 82nership of a piece of land is one thin!, and
re!istration under the Torrens syste$ of that o2nership is 1uite another. 82nership
over the accretion received by the land ad?oinin! a river is !overned by the Civil Code.
$prescriptibility of re!istered land is provided in the re!istration la2. Re!istration
under the 6and Re!istration and Cadastral Acts does not vest or !ive title to the land,
but $erely confir$s and thereafter protects the title already possessed by the o2ner,
$akin! it i$prescriptible by occupation of third parties. But to obtain this protection, the
land $ust be placed under the operation of the re!istration la2s 2herein certain
?udicial procedures have been provided. The fact re$ain, ho2ever, that petitioners
never sou!ht re!istration of said alluvial property %2hich 2as for$ed so$eti$e after
petitioners/ property covered by 8ri!inal Certificate of Title No. '+9' 2as re!istered on
:une +, )+4;, up to the ti$e they instituted the present action in the Court of -irst
nstance of sabela in )+(9. The incre$ent, therefore, never beca$e re!istered
property, and hence is not entitled or sub?ect to the protection of i$prescriptibility
en?oyed by re!istered property under the Torrens syste$. Conse1uently, it 2as sub?ect
to ac1uisition throu!h prescription by third persons.
The ne>t issue is, did respondents ac1uire said alluvial property throu!h ac1uisitive
prescriptionD This is a 1uestion 2hich re1uires deter$ination of facts3 physical
possession and dates or duration of such possession. The Court of Appeals, after
analy7in! the evidence, found that respondents&appellees 2ere in possession of the
alluvial lot since )+44 or )+4;, openly, continuously and adversely, under a clai$ of
o2nership up to the filin! of the action in )+(9. This findin! of the e>istence of these
facts, arrived at by the Court of Appeals after an e>a$ination of the evidence
presented by the parties, is conclusive as to the$ and can not be revie2ed by us.
The la2 on prescription applicable to the case is that provided in Act )+5 and not the
provisions of the Civil Code, since the possession started in )+44 or )+4; 2hen the
pertinent articles of the old Civil Code 2ere not in force and before the effectivity of the
ne2 Civil Code in )+(5. Eence, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the
respondents ac1uired alluvial lot in 1uestion by ac1uisitive prescription is in
accordance 2ith la2.
The decision of the Court of Appeals under revie2 is hereby affir$ed, 2ith costs
a!ainst the petitioners. "o ordered.
3