De Buyser v. Director of Lands, et. al.

Facts: Plaintiff is the registered owner of Lot 4217 of the
Surigao Cadastre, which borders the Surigao Strait.
Contiguous to said lot is a parcel of land which was formed
by accretion from the sea, the subject-matter of this
controversy. Defendants Ignacio Tandayag and his wife
Candida Tandayag have been occupying this foreshore land
order a Revocable Permit issued by the Director of Lands. For
the use and occupation thereof, said spouses paid Bureau of
Lands the amount of P6.50 annually. They have a house on
said lot, which plaintiff alleged had been purchased by the
Tandayags from one Francisco Macalinao, a former lessee of
the plaintiff.
Claiming ownership of the said land, plaintiff filed an
action against the spouses Tandayag in CFI-Surigao to
recover possession of this land as well as rents in arrears for
a period of 6 years. The complaint was subsequently amended
to implead the Director of Land as defendant, allegedly for
having illegally issued a revocable permit to the Tandayags.
CFI dismissed complaint filed by the plaintiff for lack of cause
of action, declaring defendants Tandayags as the lawful
occupants. Plaintiff directly appealed to SC on a pure question
of law.
Issue: WON plaintiff can claim ownership over the alluvial
land
Siary Valley Estates, Inc. v. Lucasan (1955)
*Wala ni sa CDAsia, but naa siya sa Philippine Report 97
Phil 987 nga book diris library nya pirte ra gyung mubu-a
kasoha. Copy paste ra ni, except the Issue.
Facts: This action was brought by the Siary Valley Estate to
recover about 200 heads of cattle that were driven or
wandered from its pasture lands into the adjoining ranch of
defendant Filemon Lucasan. Defendant himself admitted such
commixtion although, he says, plaintiff already retrieved its
animals.
Issue: WON Lucasan is in bad faith. If yes, will he lose his
share (in the commixtion)? YES, bad faith siya so yes, wala
siyay share.
Ruling: There is no doubt that hundreds of cattle belonging to
plaintiff have been driven into of wandered into defendants
land. No actual evidence exists that all these missing animals
were taken by defendant or his men; but in view of the proof
that his men on two occasions drove away more than 30 heads
of cattle, it is not erroneous to believe that the others must
have also been driven away on subsequent or prior occasions,
applying, by analogy, the principle that one who stole a part of
the stolen money must have taken also the larger sum lost by
the offended party.

Ruling: The plaintiff's claim of ownership over the land in The circumstances disclosed in the record show that defendant
question is bereft of legal basis. Such alluvial formation acted in bad faith. Under the Civil Code if commingling of
along the seashore is part of the public domain and, two things is made in bad faith, the one responsible for it will
therefore, not open to acquisition by adverse possession by lose his share
private persons. It is outside the commerce of man, unless
otherwise declared by either the executive or legislative
branch of the government.
In asserting the right of ownership, plaintiff invoked Art. 4 of
the Spanish Law of Water of Aug. 3, 1866 (wtf) which
provides: Lands added to the shore by accretion and alluvial
deposits caused by the action of the sea, form part of the
public domain, when they are no longer washed by the waters
of the sea, and are not necessary for purposes of public utility,
or for the establishment of special industries, or for the
coastguard service, the Government shall declare them to be
the property of the owners of the estate adjacent thereto and
as an increment thereof.
Plaintiffs reliance diri is quite misplaced. The true
construction of the cited provision is that the State shall grant
these lands to the adjoining owners only when they are no
longer needed for the purposes mentioned therein. In the case
at bar, the trial court found that plaintiffs evidence failed to
prove that the land in question is no longer needed by the
government.
Since the land is admittedly property of public dominion, its
disposition fails under the exclusive supervision and control of
the Bureau of Lands. Under the Public Land Act, an
application for the sale or lease of lands enumerated under
Section 59 thereof, should he filed with the Bureau of Lands.
In compliance therewith, the spouses Tandayag filed the
appropriate application, while plaintiff did not.