Binalay vs.

Manalo
G.R. NO. 92161
March 18, 1991

Petitioner: Simplicio Binalay, Ponciano Gannaban, Nicanor Macutay, et. Al.

Respondents: Guillermo Manalo and Court of Appeals

Ponente: Feliciano, J.

Facts:

Respondent Manalo acquired 2 lots which were originally owned by the late Judge
Taccad from 2 different people. These lots were later consolidated into Lot 307, a total of 10.45
hectares. The lot was located beside the Cagayan River, which, due to flooding, would place a
portion of the land underwater during the rainy season (September to December). On sunny
days, however, the land would be dried up for the entire dry season (January to August). When
a survey of the land was conducted on a rainy month, a portion of the land that Manalo bought
was then underwater and was thus left unsurveyed and excluded from Lot 307.

Cagayan River runs 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.

Manalo claims that Lot 821 belongs to him by way of accretion to the submerged portion of the
land to which it is adjacent. Petitioners (Binalay, et al) who possess the Lot 821, on the other
hand, insist that they own it. They occupy the other edges of the lot along the river bank (i.e.
the fertile portions on which they plant tobacco and other agricultural products) and also
cultivate the western strip during the summer.

Manalo filed 2 cases for forcible entry which were both dismissed. Later on, he filed a complaint
for quieting of title, possession, and damages against petitioner. 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 by way of accretion

HELD

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.

The SC observed that the pictures identified by Manalo during his direct examination depict the
depressed portion as a river bed. The dried up portion had dike-like slopes (around 8m) on both
sides connecting it to Lot 307 and Lot 821 that are vertical and very prominent. The eastern bed
already existed even before Manalo bought the land. It was called “Rio Muerte de Cagayan.”
The High Court stated that Manalo could not have acquired ownership of the land because
article 420 of the civil code states that rivers are property of public dominion. The word “river”
includes the running waters, the bed, and the banks. [The seller never actually owned that part
of the land since it was public property]The submerged area (22.72 ha) is twice the area of the
land he actually bought. It is difficult to suppose that such a sizable area could have been
brought about by accretion.

More importantly, the requisites of accretion in article 457 were not satisfied. These are: 1) that
the deposition of the 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) the land where the accretion takes place is
adjacent to the banks of the rivers (or the sea coast). The accretion should’ve been attached to
Lot 307 for Manalo to acquire its ownership. BUT, the claimed accretion lies on the bank of the
river; not adjacent to Lot 307 but directly opposite it – across the river. Aside from that, the
dike-like slopes which were very steep may only be formed by a sudden and forceful action like
flooding. The steep slopes could not have been formed by the river in a slow and gradual
manner.