LAW ON ACCRETION

Accretion - one form of Natural Accession.

Accession - is defined as the right of the property owner
to everything produced thereby or which is incorporated or
attached thereto either artificially or naturally.

Natural Accession:
A. Accretion (under Act 457, NCC)

Article 457 - To the owner of the land adjoining the

banks of the river belongs the accretion which they gradually
received from the effects of the current of the water.
Alluvium Defined:

Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to the lands

adjoining the banks of rivers and gradually received as
an effect of the current of the waters. By law, the
accretion is owned by the owner of the estate fronting
the river bank.
Accretion Defined:
Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited
or added in any waterways. It is a broader term because
unlike alluvium it also applies to other waterways other
than the river. It is possible that a soil deposit be made
also on the banks of the lakes. In this case, although it is
not an alluvium, the rule of ownership is the same, thus,
Article 84 of the Spanish law of Water shall apply, which
states: “Accretion deposited gradually upon lands
contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers, lakes by accessions or
sediments from the waters thereof, belong to the owners
of such lands.”
NOTE : If the river bed gradually changes, the rules
on alluvium can also apply. (Canas vs. Tuazon, 5 Phil. 689)
Essential Requisites of Alluvium:
1. The deposit should be gradual and imperceptible.
2. Cause is the current of the river (not due to work
expressly designed for the purpose). Alluvium caused by
artificial means is prohibited and penalized, unless made
with the authorization of the government. (CA 383)
3. The current must be that of the river.
a.) If, the current be that of a lake, Spanish Law of
Water must apply. In this case, although it is an
accretion it is not called alluvium, although the rule
as to ownership is the same. (Republic vs. Sat Vda. de
Castillo, et al.)
 Thus, Article 84 of the Spanish Law of water states:
Accretion deposited gradually upon the land
contiguous to Creek, Streams, Rivers, Lakes by
accession or sediments from the water thereof,
belong to the owner of such land.

b.) If, the sea, ownership belongs to the public domain

(State), and is not available for private ownership
until formally declared by the government to be no
longer needed for public use. (P.I. vs. Cabangis)

4. The river must continue to exist, otherwise, if the river

disappear, Article 461 and not Article 457 should apply.
(Pinzon vs. Rama)
5. The increase must be comparatively little, and not, for
example, such as would increase the area of the riparian
land by over 150%. (de Casa vs. Juan)
N.B. It is not necessary however:
1. That the riparian owner should make an express act
of possession, the accession being automatically his
the moment the soil deposit can be seen. (Roxas vs.
Tuazon)
2. That the riparian owner has completely paid for the
value of the riparian estate, in case of a purchase, as
long as he has already the Equitable or Beneficial
Title. (Director of Lands vs. Rizal, et.al.)
Does Accretion automatically become registered land
because the land which received it is covered by a title
thereby making the property imprescriptible?

NO, just as an unregistered land purchased by the registered

owner of the adjoining land does not, by extension, become
ipso facto registered land. Ownership of a piece of land is one
thing and registration under the Torrens System of that
ownership is quite another. Ownership over the accretion
received by the land adjoining the river is governed by the
Civil Code. Imprescriptibility of registered land is provided in
the registration law.
Registration under the Land Registration and Cadastral Acts
does not vest or give title to the land but merely confirms
and thereafter protects the title already possessed by the
owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of third
parties. But to obtain this protection, the land must be placed
under the operation of the registration laws wherein certain
judicial procedures have been provided. The fact remains,
however, that petitioner never sought registration of said
alluvial property (which was formed sometime after
petitioner’s property covered by OCT No. 2982 was
registered on June 9, 1934) up to the time they instituted the
present action in the CFI.
The increment therefore never became registered property
and hence is not entitled or subject to the protection of
imprescriptibility enjoyed by registered property under the
Torrens System. Consequently it was subject to acquisition
thru prescription by third persons. (Ignacio Grande et al vs. C.A.
et al, June 30, 1962)
 Cortez vs. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 568

Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a parcel

of land. The City of Manila objected that there was an excess
of 33.40 sq. meters in the measurement which affected the
interest of the City and it therefore asked that this portion be
segregated. Plaintiff showed that this portion had been
gradually formed by alluvium, as a result of the current of
the adjoining stream and he claimed it by right of accretion.
The lower court sustained the theory of defendant.
On appeal, it was
Held: There was no evidence whatever to prove that
the addition to the said property was made artificially by the
owner. The increase which in a latent, incessant and
spontaneous manner is received by the land from effects of
the current depositing, in the course of time, sediment and
alluvial matter along the shore, is undeniably the work of
nature and lawfully, belongs to the owner of the property.
And although the acts of possession exercised over the
bordering land are always understood legally to cover that
portion added to the property by accretion.
In this case, shrubs have been planted there, which furnish
additional proof that plaintiff had exercised rights of
ownership and possession over the whole area, including the
excess portion in question.
Alluvium is a natural incident to ownership of lands
bordering on running streams and the provisions of this
Code on this respect are not affected by the LRA.
Reason why Alluvium is Granted to the riparian
Owner:
1. To compensate him for the loss he may suffer due to
erosion or the destructive force of the water and
danger from floods.
2. To compensate him because the property is subject to
encumbrances and legal easement. (Cortez vs. City of
Manila, 10 Phil. 568)
3. The interests of agriculture require that the soil be given
to the person who is in the best position to cultivate the
same.
4. Since after all it cannot be said with certainty from
whom the soil came, it may just as well be logically given
to him who can best utilize the property. (Cortez vs. City
of Manila, 10 Phil. 568)
Loss by Alluvium not Affected by Registration
under the Land Registration Act:

It is thus clear that if portion of the land protected by a

Torrens Certificate of Title is lost by alluvium, the registered
owner is not protected by the registration, he losses the said
portion. (Payatas Estate Improvement Corp.) No protection was
offered by the title against alluvium on the ground that
accretion of the character of alluvium are natural incidents
of the land bordering running streams or rivers, and
therefore not affected by registration law. Indeed,
registration does not protect the riparian owner against the
diminution of the area of the land thru gradual changes in
the course of the adjoining streams. (Hodge vs. Garcia).
 On the other hand, an alluvial deposit does not
automatically become registered land simply because the lot
receives it covered by a Torrens Title. Although the owner
of the land on which alluvial deposit is made becomes
automatically the owner of the said deposit, the law not
requiring any act of possession on his part from the moment
the deposit becomes manifest, still ownership of a piece of
land is one thing, and registration under the Torrens System
of that ownership is quite another. Ownership over
accretion received is governed by the Civil Code.
 Imprescriptibility of registered land is provided in the
registration law. In order that said alluvial property may be
entitled to the protection of imprescriptibility, the same
must be placed under the operation of the Land
Registration Law. An unregistered alluvial property is
therefore subject to acquisition through prescription by
third person. (Granada vs Court of Appeals)
 Article 458 - The owners of estate adjoining ponds
or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural
decrease of the waters, or lose that inundated by them in
extraordinary floods.

Notes - The two parcels of land of the Colegio de San

Jose bordering Laguna de Bay continue to be its property
though accidentally inundated by the waters of the lake
(Government of the P.I. vs. Colegio de San Jose, 53 Phil. 423)
 Gov’t of the Philippines vs. Colegio de San Jose
(53 Phil. 423)

The plaintiff opposed the registration by defendant of a

parcel of land which borders the Laguna de Bay. The
plaintiff claimed that the parcel of land belonged to the
public domain. According to the evidence, the waters of the
Laguna de Bay receded from the land in question but during
rainy season the land was flooded by its water. Inasmuch as
under the Civil Code, the owner of tenements bordering on
ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the
natural decrease of the waters, then it is of primary
importance to determine whether the body of water called
the Laguna de Bay is naturally a lake or a lagoon.
 Held: Laguna de Bay is a body of fresh water formed in
depressions of the earth. It contains fresh water coming
from the rivers and brooks or springs and is connected with
Manila Bay by the Pasig River. It is a lake. Lakes and their
beds belong to the public domain. The bed of a lake is the
ground covered by its waters at their highest ordinary depth.
The waters of Laguna de Bay at their highest depth reach no
further than the northeastern boundary of the land in
question and therefore said land is outside the bed and
belongs to the defendant, who continues to be the owner of
the same even if accidentally inundated by the waters of the
lake. Even if the land in question had been formed by
alluvium, it still belongs to the defendant as owner of the
land which borders on the lake.
B. Avulsion (Article 459)
1. Article 459 -whenever the current of a river, creek
or torrent segregates an estate on its bank a known
portion of the land and transfer it to another estate,
the owner of the land to which the segregated
portion belonged retains ownership of it, provided
that he removes the same within two years.
2. Avulsion -the process whereby the current of a
river, creek or torrent segregates from an estate on
its bank a known portion of land and transfer it to
another estate. The removal of a considerable
quantity of earth upon or annexation to the land of
another must be sudden and perceptible action of
the water. (Wood vs. Mc Alpine)
 Canas vs. Tuazon (on Article 459)
8 Phil. 688

Identification of Land – the transfer of a known portion of

land from one tenement to another by the force of the
current, is known as avulsion. The portion of the land must
be such that it can be identified as coming from a definite
tenement. If such identification is not possible, no right to
remove the same can be recognized in anyone.
Even if the portion of land that has been transferred is
a compact mass, if the tenement from which it came cannot
be determined, there is no avulsion and the present article
does not apply.
And when the transfer does not involve a compact mass, but
only the soil from upper tenements have been removed by
the water and such soil is deposited on lower tenements,
there is no known portion of land that can be removed
under the provisions of this article. In these cases, there is no
avulsion and although the deposit of the land or soil, which
cannot be identified, cannot be considered avulsion yet the
ownership must be vested in the owner of the land to which
they have been transferred by the current, following the
general rule of accession.
Transfer by other forces – a known portion or land may be
transferred from one tenement to another by other forces of
nature than the current of a river, such as when land from a
mountain slope rolls down to another tenement by reason of
an earthquake. In the absence of an excess provision on the
matter, the present article can be applied by analogy. (Borell y
Soler p 298-299)
Effect of Failure to Remove

It is clear from the present article that if the owner of

the known portion of land removes it within two (2) years,
he retains the ownership thereof. But the law does not
expressly state the effect of his failure to remove such and
within the period provided. Does the land become res nullius
or does it automatically become property of the owner of
the tenement to which it has been transferred? The
provisions of other codes may prove enlightening.
 The Mexican Code (Article 910) provides: “After this
period (2 years) has elapsed, he (former owner) shall loss his
right to ownership, unless the owner of the land to which
such known portion has been united has not taken
possession thereof. This seems to imply that after the lapse
of the two-year period, the portion of land so transferred is
open to acquisition by the owner of the land to which it has
been transferred; but as long as the latter does not take
possession thereof, the ownership of the former owner may
still continue.
 This is also the rule under the Louisiana Code (Article
511) which fixes a period of one year. In the Italian Code,
unless the owner of the tenement to which the land has been
transferred takes possession thereof, it can be reacquired by
the former owner by occupation. Under the Mexican,
Louisiana and Italian Codes, therefore, the transfer of
ownership after the lapse of the statutory period does not
take place ipso jure.
 A different principle is expressed in the Chile Code
(Article 652). “The owner preserves his right of ownership
over the portion of the land which by the force of the water,
or by any other natural force is transferred from one place to
another for the sole purpose of removing it. But if he does
not claim it within the following year, it shall belong to the
owner of the land to which it has been transferred. Here the
transfer of ownership by the lapse of the statutory period
provided by law is automatic.
Which of these two Criteria is to be followed under
our Code which is silent on such important point?

The Code Commission is of the view, expressed clearly

in the Chile Code, that after 2 years, if the known portion of
land is not removed by the original owner, it should be
adjudicated to the owner of the land to which it has been
transferred. We believe that this must have been the intention
of the Code and should have been clearly stated.
The transfer of land brings about a conflict between
two rights. The right of ownership of the original owner and
the right of accession of the owner of the tenement to
which it has been transferred.
The law preserves the right of the original owner to recover
and remove his property but at the same time it creates a
prescription in favor of the person asserting accession if the
former’s right is not exercised within 2 years. (Tolentino, Civil
Code, Vol. 2 p. 122-123)
What if removal of the known portion is
impossible?

If the land transferred is of rather large area and its

removal cannot be effected, the Code Commission believes
that “a reasonable interpretation of this article would require
that the original owner should make a claim for its value
within 2 years, otherwise he will be deemed to have
renounced his right thereto”. We cannot agree with this view.
It is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the present
article. The original owner preserves his ownership over the
land within the period of 2 years.
On what principle can he recover the value of the land of
which he has not been deprived and which he can remove at
will within that period? We believe that the principle of
accession, recognized by this article as operating after the
period of 2 years, must apply whether the failure to remove
be voluntary or involuntary, and irrespective of the area of
the known portion, the principles involved are the same and
the solution must be the same. (Memorandum to Congressional
Joint Committee on Codification, February 11, 1951, Annotation
NCC Vol. II, Tolentino p 459)
If the known portion is deposited on the surface or
on top of another tenement?

There are conflicts of opinion. One school of thought

believes that the principle of Article 459 should apply and
that the original owner should be given an opportunity to
remove it but if he does not do so within the time fixed by
law, it should belong to the owner of the land upon which it
has been deposited. Another school of thought believes that
this article is not applicable when there is a merger of
sediment. According to this school, the moment such portion
begins to decompose and its soil is mixed with that of the
tenement to which it was transferred, it ceases to be a known
portion and cannot be recovered or removed. Accession
really takes place.
 We believe that these two views can be reconciled. On
general principles, this article is applicable to the case under
consideration. The unavoidable mixture of sediment at the
surface of the tenement on which it was deposited is not
sufficient to remove it from the operation of the present
article. However, if by some force of nature, such as rain the
known portion is broken or loosen into soil which mixes
with that of the tenement on which it is deposited, then
there is no more known portion which can be removed. By
the general rule of accession, the owner of the tenement
with which the soil is merged becomes the owner of such
soil. It will no longer be possible to pick out the particle of
soil and distinguish those that had been transferred by the
current from those that had originally been on the tenement.
(NCC Col. II, Tolentino, p. 458-459)
 Alluvium as distinguished from Avulsion

Alluvium
1. Soil deposit is gradual
2. Soil cannot be identified
3. Belongs to owner of
property to which it is
attached
Avulsion
1. Sudden or abrupt process
may be seen
2. Identifiable or verifiable
3. Belongs to owner from
whose property it was
detached

N.B.
In the absence of evidence that the change in the
course of the river was sudden or that it occurred through
alluvium, the presumption is that the change was gradual and
was caused by alluvium and erosion. (Payatas Estate
Improvement Co. vs. Tuazon)
 Article 460 - Trees uprooted and carried away by
the current of the waters belong to the owner of the land
upon which they may be cast, if the owners do not claim
them within six months. If such owners claim them, they
shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering them or
putting them in a safe place.
C. Change of Course of Rivers (Articles 461 & 462)

1. Article 461 - River beds which are abandoned

through the natural change in the course of the
water Ipso Facto belong to the owners whose lands
are occupied by the new course in proportion to
the area lost. However, the owners of the lands
adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire
the same by paying the value thereof, which value
shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by
the new bed.
Requisite of Article 461 to Apply:
1. The change must be sudden in order that the old river
bed may be identified. (There must be sufficient evidence
showing that the river changed its course not gradually or
imperceptively, but abruptly. (Equia vs. Equia)
2. The changing of the course must be more or less
permanent, and not temporary over flooding of another
lands.
3. The change of the river bed must be a natural one.
4. There must be a definite abandonment by the
government. If the government shortly after the change
decides and actually takes steps to bring the river t its old
bed, Article 461 will not apply, for here we cannot say
that was an abandonment.
2. Article 462 - Whenever a river changing its
course by natural causes, opens a new bed through
a private estate, this bed shall become of public
dominion.
D. Formation of Island (Articles 464 & 465)

1. Article 464 - islands which may be formed on the

seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes
and on navigable and floatable rivers belongs to the
State.
2. Article 465 - islands which through successive
accumulation of alluvial deposits are formed in non-
navigable and non-floatable rivers, belongs to the
owners of the margin of a bank nearest to each of
them, or to the owners of both margin if the island
is in the middle of the rivers, in which case it shall be
divided longitudinally in halves. If a single island thus
formed be more distant from one margin than from
the other, the owner of the nearer margin shall be the
sole owner thereof.
Islands formed in a non-navigable and non-floatable
river (under Article 465)

The island belongs to the owner of the land along the nearer
margin as sole owner thereof, or more accurately, because the
island is longer than the property of private respondents, they are
deemed ipso jure to be the owner of that portion which
corresponds to the length of their property along the margin of
the river. (Maximo Jaqualing et al vs. C.A. et al, March 4, 1991)
If an island is formed on seas, on lakes and on navigable or
floatable river, islands belongs to the public domain. (Article 464
NCC)
Navigable River – is one which in its natural state affords a
channel for useful commerce and not such as it ids only sufficient
to float a banca or canoe. (Delta Duck Club vs. Barrios, 135 La 357)