Binalay v.

Manalo
G.R No. 92161

Petitioners: Binalay et al
Respondent: Guillermo Manalo and the CA

DOCTRINE:
For accretion to take place as a mode of acquiring ownership over the land, the
land formed should be directly adjacent to the land owned.

FACTS:
Guillermo Manalo bought parcels of land in Tumauini, Isabela; 8.65 hectares was
acquired from Faustina Taccad and 1.80 hectares was bought from Gregorio
Taguba. The parcels of land were described as having the Cagayan River on their
west.

During a cadastral survey conducted, the two parcels of land were consolidated into
one lot and designated as Lot No. 307. But since the survey was conducted on a
rainy day, a portion of the land bought from Taccad was covered with water and was
not included in Lot No. 307.

Cagayan River running from south to north, forks at a certain point to form two
branches (western and eastern) and then unites at the other end, further north, to
form a narrower strip of land. The eastern branch of the river cuts through Lot 307,
and is flooded during the rainy season. The unsurveyed portion, on the other hand,
is the bed of the eastern branch.
***NOTE: that the fork exists only during the rainy season while the
“island”/elongated strip of land formed in the middle of the forks becomes dry
and perfect for cultivation when the Cagayan river is at its ordinary depth.
The strip of land in the middle of the fork totaled 22.7 hectares and was labeled Lot
821-822. Lot 821 is directly opposite Lot 307 and is separated by the eastern
branch of the river’s fork.

The Sketch Plan shows that the Cagayan River running from south to north, forks
at a certain point to form two branches (eastern and western branches) and then
unites at the other end, further north, to form a narrow strip of land.
It appears that eastern branch of the river cuts through the land of Manalo and is
flooded with water during rainy season. The bed of the eastern branch is the
unsurveyed portion of the land belonging to Manalo, and is, for most part of the year
(about 8 months), dry and susceptible to cultivation.

Lot 821 is located directly opposite Lot 307 and is separated from it during the rainy
season. However, Petitioner (Binalay et al) claim ownership over the land as they
have possessed it, occupied it and have cultivated it.

Manalo filed two cases for forcible entry which were both dismissed. Later on, he
filed a complaint for quieting of title, possession, and damages against petitioner.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
Being a portion of the land bought from Taccad, respondent claims that Lot 821 also
belongs to him by way of accretion to the submerged portion of the property to
which it is adjacent.

The trial court and the CA ruled in favor of Manalo, saying that Lot 821 and Lot 307
cannot be considered separate and distinct from each other. They reasoned that
when the land dries up for the most part of the year, the two are connected.
[Note: The CA applied the ruling in Gov’t of the Phil Islands vs. Colegio de San
Jose, which was actually inappropriate because the subject matter in this case was
a lake so that the definition of a “bed” was different.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Manalo owns Lot 821?

HELD:
The Court held in the negative saying that
1.) it is part of public dominion and
2.) it fails to meet all the requisites needed for accretion to take place.

First, it must be noted that Art. 70 of the Law of Waters defines the natural bed or
channel of a creek or river as the ground covered by its waters during the
highest floods.
The periodic swelling of the water was taken into consideration and it was concluded
that the submerged portion of the land during rainy days forms part of the natural
bed of the river. In connection with this conclusion, Art. 420 of the Civil Code
provides that rivers form part of public dominion.

Second, accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Art. 457 of the Civil Code
requires the concurrence of three requisites:
1) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible;
2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and
3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers (or the
sea coast).

In this case at bar, the requisites were not satisfied. The claimed accretion lies on
the bank of the river not adjacent to Lot 307 but directly opposite Lot 307 across the
river.

Lastly, SC held that it is difficult to suppose that a land with an area of 22.72
hectares resulted from slow accretion to another lot of almost equal size. If Manalo’s
contention is accepted, then his land would have doubled in a span of 10 years.

All these considered, the Court held that the land in question is part of public
dominion and neither Manalo nor the petitioners were held owners of the land.