Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
AMPIL)5thweek|BeduralBlezaCimagalaDelosSantosImperialNoelPlazoSia2D2012|
*The spaces are there so that you can draw the situation to make
the facts clearer (or for you to write your own notes if you dont
need to draw). :P
VIAJAR v. CA
It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens
System does not protect the riparian owner against the
dimunition of the area of his registered land through
gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream or
river.
FACTS
Private respondents Spouses Ladrido are owners of Lot 7511
of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan Iloilo. Petitioners are
owners of the Lot 7340, which they bought from the Te. FACTS:
Private respondents, Maria Melad and Pablo Binuyag are
Viajar had lot 7340 relocated and found out that the property among those who are occupying the western bank of the
was in the possession of Ladrido. She demanded the return Cagayan River while on the eastern bank is owned by
but the latter refused. She instituted a civil action for petitioner Eulogio Agustin. From 1919 to 1968, the Cagayan
recovery of possession and damages. She also impleaded Te river has eroded the lands on the eastern bank including
as defedant for the reason that if Ladrido is going to be Agustins Lot depositing alluvium on the land possessed by
favored then the sale was to be annulled and plaintiff must Pablo Binuyag. In 1968, after a typhoon which caused a big
be reimbursed. During the trial it was proven that during flood, the Cagayan River changed its course and returned it
the cadastral survey in 1926, the two lots were separated by to its 1919 bed and it cut through the lands of respondents
the Suague River and that a part of the land of Lot 7340 and whose lands were transferred on the eastern side. To
the old river bed were in the possession of the defendants cultivate the lands they had to cross the river. When they
and that the plaintiffs have never been in actual physical were cultivating said lands, (they were planting corn) Agustin
possession. accompanied by the mayor and some policemen claimed the
land and drove them away. So Melad and Binuyag filed
CFI ruled in favor of the defendants which the CA confirmed. separate complaints for recovery of their lots and its
There was a mention in the case that the issue from which accretions. The Trial Court held ordered Agustin et. al to
the decision of the CFI was not the issue appealed in the CA vacate the lands and return them to respondents. On appeal,
so the affirmation made by the CA should be void. the IAC affirmed in toto the judgment thus the case at bar.
ISSUES ISSUE: W/N private respondents own the accretion and such
1) W/N the change in the course of the Suague River was ownership is not affected by the sudden and abrupt change in
gradual or sudden the course of the Cagayan River when it reverted to its old
2) W/N the plaintiffs are protected by the Torrens System bed
(in relation to the dimunition of the area of their land bec
the plaintiffs are contending that Art 457 must be HELD: YES
interpreted as applicable only to unregistered lands) Art. 457 states that the owner of the lands adjoining river
banks own the accretion which they gradually receive from
RULING the effects of the currents of the waters. Accretion benefits a
It was established in the trial that for a period of 40 years the riparian owner provided that these elements are present: 1)
Suague river overflowed its banks yearly and the property of deposit be gradual and imperceptible 2) it resulted from the
the defendant gradually received deposits of soil from the effects of the current of the water and 3) the land is
effects of the current of the river. adjacent to the river bank. When the River moved from 1919
to 1968, there was alluvium deposited and it was gradual and
It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens imperceptible.
System does not protect the riparian owner against the
dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual Accretion benefits the riparian owner because these lands are
changes in the course of an adjoining stream or river. exposed to floods and other damage due to the destructive
Accretions which the banks of the river may gradually receive force of the waters, and if by virtue of law they are subject
from the effect of the current become the property of the to encumbrances and various kinds of easements, it is only
owners of the banks. just that such risks or dangers should in some way be
AGUSTIN V. IAC compensated by the right of accretion.
PROPERTYCASEDIGESTS(ATTY.AMPIL)5thweek|BeduralBlezaCimagalaDelosSantosImperialNoelPlazoSia2D2012|
Also, respondents ownership over said lots was not removed Manalo claims that Lot 821 belongs to him by way of
when due to the sudden and abrupt change in the course of accretion to the submerged portion of the land to which it is
the river; their accretions were transferred to the other side. adjacent. Petitioners (Binalay, et al) who possess the Lot 821,
Art. 459 states when the current of a river x x x segragates on the other hand, insist that they own it. They occupy the
from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and other edges of the lot along the river bank (i.e. the fertile
transfers it to another estate, the owner of segregated portions on which they plant tobacco and other agricultural
portion retains ownership provided he removes the same w/in products) and also cultivate the western strip during the
2 years. And Art. 463 states that whenever the current of a summer.
river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or
part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains Manalo filed 2 cases for forcible entry which were both
ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated dismissed. Later on, he filed a complaint for quieting of title,
from the estate by the current. possession, and damages against petitioner. The trial court
and the CA ruled in favor of Manalo, saying that Lot 821 and
BINALAY VS. MANALO Lot 307 cannot be considered separate and distinct from each
other. They reasoned that when the land dries up for the
A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is not the most part of the year, the two are connected.
alluvial process contemplated in Art. 457. The accumulation
of the soil deposits must be slow and hardly imperceptible in [Note: The CA applied the ruling in Govt of the Phil Islands
order for the riparian owner to acquire ownership thereof. vs. Colegio de San Jose, which was actually inappropriate
Also, the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent because the subject matter in this case was a lake so that the
to the banks of the rivers (or the sea coast). definition of a bed was different.]
RULING: No.
The disputed property is not an accretion. It is the action of
the heavy rains that cause the highest ordinary level of
waters of the Cagayan River during the rainy season. The
depressed portion is a river bed and is thus considered
property of public domain.
PROPERTYCASEDIGESTS(ATTY.AMPIL)5thweek|BeduralBlezaCimagalaDelosSantosImperialNoelPlazoSia2D2012|
flooding. The steep slopes could not have been formed by the Registration denied, decisions appealed are reversed.
river in a slow and gradual manner.
Note: The lands sought were not even dry land. The entire
REPUBLIC VS. CA area was under one to two meters of water.
Alluvium must be the exclusive work of nature. It has 3
requirements: 1) that the deposit be gradual and HEIRS OF NAVARRO V IAC
imperceptible; 2) through the current of the river; and Accretion along an area adjacent to the sea is public domain,
3) the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent even if the accretion results from rivers emptying into the
to the river bank. Deposits made by human intervention sea. It cannot be registered.
are excluded.
FACTS FACTS:
The respondents (Tancincos) were registered owners of a Sinforoso Pascual sits in the midst of a land registration case.
parcel of land in Bulacan, bordering on the Maycauayan and
Bocaue Rivers. They filed an application for the registration The story begins on 1946 upon his desire to register land on
of three lots adjacent to their fishpond, but because of the the northern section of his existing property. His current
recommendation of the Commissioner, they only pushed for registered property is bounded on the east by Talisay River,
the registration of two. The RTC and CA granted the petition on the West by Bulacan River and on the North by the Manila
despite the opposition of the Bureau of Lands. bay. Both rivers flow towards the Manila Bay.
The respondents based their claim on accretions to their Because of constantly flowing water, extra land of about
fishponds. They presented a lone witness (their overseer). 17hectares (thats about the size of Disney Park!) formed in
the northern most section of the property. It is this property
The Bureau of Lands argue that the lands in dispute are not he sought to register.
accretions. They assert that what actually happened was that
the respondents simply transferred their dikes simply further The RTC denied the registration claiming this to be foreshore
down the river bed of the Meycauayan River. Thus, if there land and part of public domain (remember, accretion formed
was any accretion to speak of, it was man-made. by the sea is public dominion). His Motion for Reconsideration
likewise burned.
Respondents counter that the their evidence shows that
accretion happened without human intervention and that the In 1960, he attempted registry again, claiming that the
transfer of the dikes occurred only after. Talisay and Bulacan rivers deposited more silt resulting on
accretion. He claimed this land as riprarian owner. The
ISSUE: w/n accretion took place Director of Lands, Director of Forestry and the Fiscal
opposed
RULING: No
Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature. There is not Then a new party surfaced. Mr Emiliano Navarro jumped into
evidence that the addition to said property was made the fray opposing the same application, stating the he leased
gradually through the effects of the currents of the two part of the property sought to be registered. He sought to
rivers. The lands in question total almost 4 hectares of land, protect his fishpond that rested on the same property.
which are highly doubtful to have been caused by accretion. Sinforoso was not amused and filed ejectment against Mr.
Navarro, claiming that Navarro used stealth force and
The lone witness testified that she observed an increase in strategy to occupy a portion of his land.
the area in 1939, but the lots in question were not included
in the survey of their adjacent property conducted in 1940. Pascual lost the case against Navarro so he appealed. During
They were also not included in the Cadastral Survey of the the appeal, his original land registration case was
entire Municipality of Maycauayan between the years 1958- consolidated and tried jointly. (alas Pascual died) The heirs
1960. If the overseer was indeed telling the truth, the of Pascual took over the case.
accretion was sudden, not gradual.
On 1975, the court decided that the property was foreshore
When the respondents transferred their dikes towards the land and therefore part of public domain. The RTC dismissed
river beds, the dikes were meant for reclamation purposes the complaint of Pascual for ejectment against Navarro and
and not to protect their property from the destructive force also denied his land registration request.
of the waters of the river. The lots in question were portions
of the bed of the Meycauayan River and are therefore Pascuals heirs appealed and the RTC was reversed by the
classified as public property. IAC. The Apellate court granted petition for registration! The
reason? The accretion was caused by the two rivers, not
3
PROPERTYCASEDIGESTS(ATTY.AMPIL)5thweek|BeduralBlezaCimagalaDelosSantosImperialNoelPlazoSia2D2012|
ISSUE: w/n the accretion taking place on property adjacent The man died and his son Santos acquired part of the land
to the sea can be registered under the Torrens system. after partition amongst the heirs. He filed for registration but
the same was opposed by the Director of Lands and Private
HELD: Oppositors.
It cannot be registered. This is land of Public domain.
Director OF Lands alleged that a portion of the land stays
Pascual claimed ownership under Article 457 of the Civil submerged in water for 4 to 5 months, therefore it forms part
Code saying that the disputed 14-hectare land is an accretion of public domain.
caused by the joint action of the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers
Two Private oppositors also blocked registration because they
Art 457: Accretion as a mode of acquiring property and wanted the land for themselves (they built duckhouses with
requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the toleration of Santos, but violated the terms of agreement
the accumulation of soil or sediment be gradual and by also building residences).
imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the
waters of the river; and (3) that the land where the accretion ISSUE: w/n the land can be registered
takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river.
HELD:YES.
Unfortunately, Pasucal and Heirs claim of ownership based on The Law of waters govern. According to such law, the natural
Art 457 is misplaced. If theres any land to be claimed, it bed of lakes, ponds or pools pertains to that covered by
should be land ADJACENT to the rivers Talisay and Bulacan. waters at their highest ordinary time of the year for most of
The law is clear on this. Accretion of land along the river the year. The Laguna Bay is a lake and the part around it
bank may be registered. This is not the case of accretion of covered with water up to 5 months a year results not from
land on the property adjacent to Manila Bay. tidal action but from thunderstorms. The law defines
foreshore land as that area between high and low water
Furthermore, Manila Bay is a sea. Accretion on a sea bank is alternately revealed and hidden by the tide. Hence, the
foreshore land and the applicable law is not Art 457 but Art 4 disputed land is not foreshore. It is registrable. The Director
of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. This law, while old, of Lands argues from the wrong premises.
holds that accretion along sea shore cannot be registered as
it remains public domain unless abandoned by government for And as to the private oppositors who entered into possession
public use and declared as private property capable of based on mere PERMISSION and as ungrateful tenants WHO
alienation. DID NOT EVEN PAY RENT REGULARLY, their petition had been
denied. Such possession cannot ripen into ownership. Only
Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of owners can
provides as follows: serve as the basis for title acquired via prescription.
PROPERTYCASEDIGESTS(ATTY.AMPIL)5thweek|BeduralBlezaCimagalaDelosSantosImperialNoelPlazoSia2D2012|
By 1958, a gradual accretion took place due to the action of ISSUE: Whether or not accretion automatically becomes
the current of the river, and an alluvial deposit of almost registered land just because the adjoining lot is registered in
20,000 sq.m. was added to the registered area. The Grandes the Torrens System?
filed an action for quieting of title against the Calalungs ,
stating that they were in peaceful and continuous possession HELD:
of the land created by the alluvial deposit until 1948, when While it is true that alluvial deposits shall belong to the
the Calalungs allegedly trespassed into their property. The owner of the lot adjoining such accretion, it does not
Calalungs, however, stated that they were the rightful automatically bestow an imprescriptibility. If the owners of
owners since prior to 1933. said land have not registered this with the proper entity, said
land will be subject to acquisition by prescription, which was
The CFI found for the Grandes and ordered the Calalungs to what occurred in this case.
vacate the premises and pay for damages. Upon appeal to the
CA, however, the decision was reversed. Since the affidavits prove that Reynante has been in
possession of these lands for more than 50 years, the SC
ISSUE: Whether or not the alluvium deposited land rightly held that the land belongs to him.
automatically belongs to the riparian owners?
RONQUILLO V. COURT OF APPEALS
HELD:
The rules on alluvion do not apply to man-made or
Art. 457 dictates that alluvium deposits on land belong to the
artificial accretions 23 nor to accretions to lands that
owners of the adjacent land. However, this does not ipso jure
adjoin canals or esteros or artificial drainage systems.
become theirs merely believing that said land have become
imprescriptible. The land of the Grandes only specifies a
specific portion, of which the alluvial deposits are not
included, and are thus, subject to acquisition by prescription.
RULING: No.
The rules on alluvion do not apply to man-made or artificial
FACTS: accretions 23 nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or
More than 50 years ago, Reynante was taken as tenant by the esteros or artificial drainage systems. 24 Considering our
late Don Cosme Carlos over a fishpond in Meycauayan, earlier finding that the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub
Bulacan. Reynante subsequently built a nipa hut where he was actually caused by the active intervention of man, it
and his family lived and took care of the nipa palms which follows that Article 370 does not apply to the case at bar and,
they planted on lots 1 and 2, which was located between the hence, the Del Rosarios cannot be entitled thereto
fishpond and Liputan River. Reynantes family sold the nipa supposedly as riparian owners.
palms, and appropriated the fruits as his own, without
interference or complaint from Don Carlos. The dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub should thus be
considered as forming part of the land of the public domain
Upon Don Carlos death, his heirs convinced Reynante to sign which cannot be subject to acquisition by private ownership.
an affidavit, relinquishing his rights as a caretaker of the
fishpond. Reynante, however, continued to live in the inpa BAES V. COURT OF APPEALS
hut he had built, and he still took care of the nipa palms,
If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for
which he continued to sell.
the damage to or loss of his property due to natural
causes, there is all the more reason to compensate
This lead the heirs to file a complaint for forcible entry with
him when the change in the course of the river is
preliminary injunction against Reynante in the MTC. The MTC
effected through artificial means.
found for Reynante, but the heirs appealed to the RTC, where
the decision was reversed. The CA merely affirmed the
decision of the RTC.
PROPERTYCASEDIGESTS(ATTY.AMPIL)5thweek|BeduralBlezaCimagalaDelosSantosImperialNoelPlazoSia2D2012|