Grande v.

Court of Appeals RATIO:

SUMMARY: Owners of a parcel of land filed a suit
for quieting of title and recovery of possession over
a portion of property that was added to the original
parcel of land via accretion. The defendants claim
ownership by acquisitive prescription, being in
open, continuous and undisturbed possession of
the property for over 30 years prior to the filing of
this case.
DOCTRINE: Alluvial deposits become part of the
property to which it becomes attached, and
ownership of the alluvial portion belongs to the
owner of the attached property. However, this land
is not automatically covered by the Torrens title of
the land owned prior to the accretion, and is
considered unregistered land, making it
susceptible to acquisitive prescription.
FACTS:
Petitioners Ignacio, Eulogia, Alfonso,
Eulalia, and Sofia Grande filed a suit for quieting of
title and recovery of possession over a parcel of
land that came about through alluvial deposits from
the Cagayan River.
Their original lot, (issued in 1934) provides
their northeastern boundary as the Cagayan River.
It is to this boundary that the accretion occurred.
The Grandes allege that they have been in
possession of this property until 1948, when
defendants Domingo and Esteban Calalung
entered the land on a claim of ownership.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
Calalungs and upheld the decision of the Court of
Appeals.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that by
Article 457 of the New Civil Code and Article 366
of the Old Civil Code, the Grandes are the owners
of the alluvial property. However, this does not
operate to automatically include the alluvial
property under OCT No. 2892. While ownership is
governed by the Civil Code, imprescriptibility of
registered land is provided in the registration law.
As the Grandes never sought to have the alluvial
property titled, it is considered unregistered land.
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of
the Court of Appeals on the possession of the
Calalungs of the property since 1933-1934,
openly, continuously and adversely, under a claim
of ownership up to the filing of the action in 1958.
The Court pointed out that it is the provisions of Act
No. 190, particularly Sec. 41, that governs this
case, since the provisions of the Old Civil Code
were not yet in effect. Sec. 41 provides an
acquisitive prescriptive period of only ten years,
meaning the Calalung acquired ownership as early
as 1943-1944.

The Calalungs, on the other hand, claim to

have been in open, continuous, and undisturbed
possession of the contested property since 1933,
and argue that they are now the owners of the
property through acquisitive prescription, since the
case was filed more than 30 years after they first
took possession of the property.
The Calalungs had declared the property
for taxation purposes in 1944, and again in 1948
when the municipality changed its name. Two
owners of adjoining lots, Laman and Bacani, both
testified in support of the Calalungs.

RTC ruled in favor of the Grandes, but the

Court of Appeals reversed the decision below and
upheld the Calalungs’ argument on acquisitive
prescription.

ISSUE: WON the contested property can be

acquired by prescription