Digest Author: Leiron Conrad T.

Martija ISSUES:
1. Are the Ladrido spouses entitled to the accretion of the land?
Viajar v CA PROVISION: Article 457 of the Civil Code
Petitioner: ANGELICA AND CELSO VIAJAR
Respondent: COURT OF APPEALS, LEONOR LADRIDO, LOURDES 1. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which
IGNACIO LADRIDO, EUGENIO P. PADRIDO, MANUEL P. LADRIDO they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
Ponente: MEDIALDEA,J.
RULING + RATIO:
1. YES.
DOCTRINE:
 The findings of fact reveal that it was indeed a gradual accretion
For accretion or alluvion to form part of registered land of riparian
of over 40 years. As a question of fact, it was established as
owner, the gradual alluvial deposits must be due to the effects of the early as the RTC decision.
river’s current. A torrens title does not guarantee future accretion to its  This case falls squarely with Art. 457. Textbook definition of
holder. accretion, and of Ladrido spouses as riparian owners.
 Riparian owner does not acquire the additions to his land caused
FACTS: by special works expressly intended or designed to bring about
1. The Spouses Ladrido and Sps. Te were neighbors, owning adhacent accretion. When the private respondents transferred their dikes
parcels of land. Eventually, Viajar purchase the Te property. Upon towards the river bed, the dikes were meant for reclamation
the relocation survey conducted by the petitioners Viajar, it was purposes and not to protect their property from the destructive
discovered that the land he bought was actually in possession of the force of the waters of the river.
Ladrido spouses, who refused to surrender the same.  On the defense of the torrens title, the Court ruled that it does
2. A case was then filed by Viajar to recover their property. He also not guarantee future accretion, as these are subject to the
impleaded the Te spouses in the case to annul the deed of absolute gradual and natural changes in the river. Mother nature, being a
sale in case the possession of the Ladrido spouses was sustained. fickle mistress, cannot be expected to be merely contained within
3. During the pendency of the case, Celso Viajar sold the land in the four corners of a mere torrens title.
question to his mother, Angelica Viajar, who continues the interest of
Celso in the case. Ladrido dies, and he is survived in the case by his
wife and children. DISPOSITION: Petition denied.
4. The lots in question here used to be separated by the Suague river.
The total area of the old river bed amounting to 14,036 square
meters. This old river bed is claimed by the Ladrido party, alleging
that it is theirs by accretion of over 40 years.
a. The Viajar spouses interpose: the change in the river was
actually sudden (this was a procedural matter: this was taken
as the pivotal issue raised by the plaintiffs themselves at the
RTC. When the RTC dismissed the same, the Viajar party
claimed that they had abandoned this issue, and that the CA
had no jurisdiction to revisit the issue on appeal. Based on
this, they would have the entire CA decision erroneous. [An
aside: precisely the Viajar party knew this was fatal to the
case, so they wanted to forget it at the CA level.] The
findings are sustained, and the CA decides that the accretion
was gradual)
b. An additional defense was interposed by the Viajar spouses:
that since they purchased the land and are holders of the
Torrens title, it should be them who are entitled to the
accretion of the land.
Agustin v. IAC (1990)

Petition: Petition for Review

Petitioner: EULOGIO AGUSTIN, HEIRS OF BALDOMERO LANGCAY, ARTURO BALISI & JUAN
LANGCAY
Ponencia: INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MARIA MELAD, TIMOTEO MELAD, PABLO BINAYUG
& GERONIMA UBINA

DOCTRINE:

Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they
gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters

Art. 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part
thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is
separated from the estate by the current

FACTS:

1.) Cagayan river separates the town of Solana on the west and of Tuguegarao on the east
2.) Rigor, Geodetic Engineer of the Bureau of Lands testified that in 1919 the lands east of the
river were covered by the Tuguegarao Cadastre
3.) In 1925, title was issued to Agustin for the land east of the Cagayan river
4.) In 1950 all lands west of the river or the Solana Cadastre was owned by Binayug (tobacco,
corn and talahib) and Melad
5.) As the years went by, the Cagayan river gradually moved eastward, depositing alluvium
as accretion on the land of Binayug
6.) In 1968 after a big flood, the Cagayan river changed course w/c returned to its 1919 bed
and w/c cut across the land of Binayug and Melad whose lands were transferred to the
western part of the river, forcing them to cross such in order to cultivate the lots
7.) In 1969 while the private respondents were planting corn w/ their tenants, petitioners
together with the mayor and some policemen of Tuguegarao claimed the lands and drove
them away
8.) Melad and Binayug filed a complaint to recover their lots and accretions

ISSUES:

1. WoN Melad and Binayug should recover the lots and accretions

RULING + RATIO: YES

First: Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they
gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters

Application: The lands of Melad and Binayug due to accretion, expanded by 6.6 hectares and 50
hectares as the Cagayan River gradually moved to the east so the alluvium belongs to them

Second: Art. 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land
or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a portion of
land is separated from the estate by the current

Application: The lands of Melad and Binagyu were cut across due to the big flood that caused the
river to change course thereby separating that portion of the land from the estate. They also retain
ownership of such portion
 BINALAY v. MANALO (1991)
Petitioner: Simplicio Binalay et. al.
Respondent: Guillermo Manalo and CA
Ponencia: Feliciano
DOCTRINE: A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is
not the alluvial process contemplated under Art. 457 of the Civil
Code. It is the slow and hardly perceptible accumulation of soil
deposits that the law grants to the riparian owner.
FACTS:
1. The late Judge Taccad originally owned a 20 hectare parcel of
land in Isabela.
2. Cagayan River was bordering its western portion while its
easter portion is bordered by the national road.
3. The western portion periodically goes under the waters for the
river during the rainy season and re-appears during the dry
season (Jan to Aug).
4. Later on, Manalo acquired the following:
a. 8.65 hectares thereof from Faustina, daughter od the
judge
b. 1.80 hectares from Taguba who had earlier acquired
the same from the Judge
5. During the cadastral survey for the consolidation of the lands,
a part of the land bouth from Faustina was not included in Lot
307 because it was conducted on a rainy month.
6. Apparently, the Cagayan River running from south to north,
forks at a certain point to form two (2) branches – the western
and eastern branches – an then unites at the north to form a
narrow strip of land.
7. The strip of land consists of Lot 821 (N, 11.9087 hec) and Lot
822 (S, 10.8122 hec).
8. Manalo claims that Lot 821 also belongs to him by way of
accretion to the submerged portion of the property to which it
is adjacent.
9. Binalay et al. insist that they own the land where they plant
tobacco and other agricultural products.
10. Manalo filed a case of forcible entry
ISSUE: WoN Lot 821 was an increment to Lot 307 and the bed of
the eastern branch of the river
PROVISION:
Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong
the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of the waters. (336)
RULING + RATIO: NO, it wasn’t.
 There were no factual findings that Lot 307 received alluvium
from the action of the river in a slow and gradual manner.
 Such was impossible to happen because the it is difficult to
believe that such strip of land with a total area of 22.72
hectares formed in a span of 10 years.
 Moreover, there are steep vertical dike-like slopes separating
the depressed portion or river bed and Lot 821 and 307.
DISPOSITION: Decision and resolution of CA is SET ASIDE. Manalo
is hereby declared owner of Lot 307. The regularly submerged portion
or the eastern bed of the Cagayan River is hereby DECLARED
property of public dominion. The ownership of lot 821 shall be
determined in an appropriate action that may be instituted by the
interested parties intere se.
 Republic v CA
Petitioner: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIRECTOR OF LANDS)
Respondent: COURT OF APPEALS, BENJAMIN TANCINCO,
AZUCENA TANCINCO REYES, MARINA TANCINCO IMPERIAL
AND MARIO C. TAN
Ponente: GUTIERREZ, JR.,J.
DOCTRINE:
For accretion or alluvion to form part of registered land of riparian
owner, the gradual alluvial deposits must be due to the effects of the
river’s current. Deposits made by human intervention are excluded.
of the current of the water; and (3) that the land where accretion
takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.
 The requirement that the deposit should be due to the effect of
the current of the river is indispensable. This excludes from Art.
457 of the New Civil Code all deposits caused by human
intervention.
 Riparian owner does not acquire the additions to his land caused
by special works expressly intended or designed to bring about
accretion. When the private respondents transferred their dikes
towards the river bed, the dikes were meant for reclamation
purposes and not to protect their property from the destructive
force of the waters of the river.

A riparian owner cannot register accretions to his land arising from

special works or man-made dikes constructed for reclamation DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
purposes. decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
private respondents are ordered to move back the dikes of their
FACTS: fishponds to their original location and return the disputed property to
1. Respondents Benjamin Tancinco, Azucena Tancinco Reyes, Maria the river to which it belongs
Tancinco Imperial and Mario Tancinco are registered owners of a
parcel of land situated in Barrio Ubihan, Meycauayan, Bulacan
bordering on the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers.
2. They filed for an application for the registration of three lots adjacent
to their fishpond property.
3. Assistant Provincial Fiscal Amando C. Vicente, representing the
Bureau of Lands, filed a written opposition to the application for
registration.
4. Lot 3 was ordered withdrawn from the application. The lower court
granted the application and found that the lands were accretions to
the private respondents’ fishponds.
5. Petitioner appealed arguing that the accretion were man-made due
to the transfer of the dikes by the respondent further down the river
bed of the Meycauayan River.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not respondents are entitled to the accretion.
PROVISION: Article 457 of the Civil Code
1. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which
they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.

RULING + RATIO:
1. No. They are not entitled to the accretion.
 The above-quoted article requires the concurrence of three
requisites before an accretion covered by this particular provision
is said to have taken place. They are (1) that the deposit be
gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be made through the effects
 Republic v. Court of Appeals (1984)
Petitioner: G.R. No. L-43105: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Director of
Lands), G.R. No. L-43190: AURORA BAUTISTA, OLIMPIO LARIOS, FELICIDAD DE
LA CRUZ, ELPIDIO LARIOS, LUCITA BANDA, BENITO SANTAYANA, FRUCTUOSA
BANHAO LUCIO VELASCO, GREGORIO DATOY, FELIMON GUTIERREZ, ET AL.
Respondent: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) AND
SANTOS DEL RIO
Ponencia: CUEVAS, J.
DOCTRINE: Since the inundation of a portion of the land is not due to
“flux and reflux of tides” it cannot be considered a foreshore land.
FACTS:
1. Subject land with an area of 17,311 square meters was 20 meters
away from the shores of Laguna de Bay. It was owned by
Benedicto del Rio.
2. After his death, it was acquired by the son Santos del Rio. Private
oppositors sought permission and obtained the same to construct
duck houses. They violated agreement by constructing residential
houses.
3. Santos then sought to register the land which was opposed. The
oppositors was able to obtain sales application on the land. The
Director of Lands alleged that since a portion of the land is
submerged in water 4 to 5 months, then it forms part of the
public domain.
4. Petitioners private oppositors in G.R. No. L-43190, on the other
hand, allege that they reclaimed the land by dumping duck egg
shells thereon, and that they have been in possession of the same
for more than twenty (20) years.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the parcel of land in question is public land?
2) Whether or not private oppositors can reclaim the land?
PROVISION: Articles 420 and 502. Article 420 provides:
The following things are property of public dominion:
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks,
shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;
(2) (2) Those which belong to the State without being for public
use, and are intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth.
Article 502 adds to the above enumeration, the following:
(1) Rivers and their natural beds;
(2)Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks running in
their natural beds and the beds themselves;
(3)Waters rising continuously or intermittently on lands of public
dominion;
(4) Lakes and lagoons formed by Nature on public lands and their
beds;
RULING + RATIO:
1. No.
 According to the Law of Waters, the natural bed or basin of lakes,
ponds, or pools is the covered by their waters when at their
highest ordinary depth—regular, common, natural, which occurs
almost or most of the time during the year.
 Laguna de Bay is a lake and that part around it which
becomes covered with water 4 to 5 months a year, not due to tidal
action, but due to rains cannot be considered as part of the bed or
basin of Laguna de Bay nor as a foreshore land. Property not being
so, the land is registrable.
2. No.
 Private persons cannot, by themselves reclaim land from water
bodies belonging to the public domain without proper permission
from government authorities. And even if such reclamation had been
authorized, the reclaimed land does not automatically belong to the
party reclaiming the same as they may still be subject to the terms of
the authority earlier granted.
DISPOSITION: Judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED and the
registration in favor of applicant private-respondent of the land described
Heirs of Navarro v IAC
Petitioner: HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO
Respondent: INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND HEIRS OF
SINFOROSO PASCUAL
Ponencia: HERMOSISIMA, JR,J.
DOCTRINE: Only the executive and possibly the legislative departments
have the right and the power to make the declaration that the lands so
gained by action of the sea as no longer necessary for purposes of public
utility or for the cause of establishment of special industries or for coast
guard services.
FACTS:
1. Sinforoso Pascual filed an application to register and confirm his title
to a parcel of land, situated in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan, described
in Plan Psu-175181 and said to have an area of 146,611 square
meters. Pascual claimed that this land is an accretion to his property,
situated in Barrio Puerto Rivas, Balanga, Bataan, and covered by
Original Certificate of Title No. 6830. It is bounded on the eastern
side by the Talisay River, on the western side by the Bulacan River,
and on the northern side by the Manila Bay. The Talisay River as
well as the Bulacan River flow downstream and meet at the Manila
Bay thereby depositing sand and silt on Pascual's property resulting
in an accretion thereon. Sinforoso Pascual claimed the accretion as
the riparian owner.
2. Upon motion of Emiliano Navarro, however, the order of general
default was lifted and, on February 13, 1961, Navarro thereupon filed
an opposition to Pascual's application. Navarro claimed that the land
sought to be registered has always been part of the public domain, it
being a part of the foreshore of Manila Bay; that he was a lessee and
in possession of a part of the subject property by virtue of a fishpond
permit issued by the Bureau of Fisheries and confirmed by the Office
of the President; and that he had already converted the area covered
by the lease into a fishpond.
3. On November 10, 1975, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment
finding the subject property to be foreshore land and, being a part of
the public domain, it cannot be the subject of land registration
proceedings.
4. On appeal, the respondent court reversed the findings of the court a
quo and granted the petition for registration of the subject property
asserting that while the subject land is found at the shore of the
Manila Bay fronting Pascual’s land, said land is not foreshore but an
accretion from the action of the Talisay and Bulacan rivers where the
flow of the two rivers is downwards to the Manila Bay thus the
sediments of sand and silt are deposited at their mouths.
ISSUE:WON the subject land can be registered
PROVISION:
Civil Code-Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers
belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of the waters.
Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 provides as follows:
"Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits caused by the
action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no longer
washed by the waters of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of
public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for the coast-
guard service, the Government shall declare them to be the property of the
owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as increment thereof."
RULING + RATIO:NO
The accretion was deposited, not on either the eastern or western portion of
private respondents' land where a river each runs, but on the northern portion
of petitioners' land which adjoins the Manila Bay and was not caused by the
current of the two rivers but by the action of the sea (Manila Bay) into which
the rivers empty. The disputed land, thus, is an accretion not on a river bank
but on a sea bank, or on what used to be the foreshore of Manila Bay which
adjoined private respondents' own tract of land on the northern side.
Only the executive and possibly the legislative departments have the right
and the power to make the declaration that the lands so gained by action of
the sea as no longer necessary for purposes of public utility or for the cause
of establishment of special industries or for coast guard services.
Petitioners utterly fail to show that either the executive or legislative
department has already declared the disputed land as qualified, under Article
4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, to be the property of private
respondents as owners of the estates adjacent thereto.
Also: The palapat and bakawan trees planted by appellants in 1948 became
a sort of strainer of the sea water and at the same time a kind of block to the
strained sediments from being carried back to the sea by the very waves that
brought them to the former shore. In other words, the combined and
interactive effect of the planting of palapat and bakawan trees, the withdrawal
of the waters of Manila Bay eventually resulting in the drying up of its former
foreshore, and the regular torrential action of the waters of Manila Bay, is the
formation of the disputed land on the northern boundary of private
respondents' own tract of land.

DISPOSITION: the decision of respondent court is reversed

 GRANDE v. CA (1962)
Petitioner: Ignacio Grande et. al
Respondent: Court of Appeals, Domingo Calalung
Ponencia: Barrera, J.
Digest Author: Gullas, J.
DOCTRINE:
Although alluvion is automatically owned by the riparian owner, it does not
automatically become registered land just because the lot which receives
such accretion is covered by a Torrens Title. As such, alluvial deposit
acquired by a riparian owner of registered land may be subjected to
acquisition through prescription by a third person upon failure of such owner
to register the accretion within the prescribed period
FACTS:
1. Petitioners are the owners of a parcel of land, with an area of 3.5032
hectares, located at barrio Ragan, municipality of Magsaysay,
province of Isabela, by inheritance from their deceased mother
Patricia Angui
2. When it was surveyed for purposes of registration sometime in 1930,
its northeastern boundary was the Cagayan River (the same
boundary stated in the title). Since then, and for many years
thereafter, a gradual accretion on the northeastern side took place,
by action of the current of the Cagayan River, so much so, that by
1958, the bank thereof had receded to a distance of about 105
meters from its original site, and an alluvial deposit of 19,964 square
meters (1.9964 hectares), more or less, had been added to the
registered area
3. Petitioners instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance
of Isabela against respondents, to quiet title to said portion (19,964
square meters) formed by accretion, alleging in their complaint that
they and their predecessors-in-interest, were formerly in peaceful
and continuous possession thereof, until September, 1948, when
respondents entered upon the land under claim of ownership.
4. Respondents claim ownership themselves, asserting that they have
been in continuous, open, and undisturbed possession of said
portion, since prior to the year 1933 to the present.
5. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Isabela, on May 4, 1959,
rendered a decision adjudging the ownership of the accretion in
question to petitioners, and ordering respondents to vacate the
premises and deliver possession thereof to petitioners
6. Court of Appeals reversed the CFI’s decision. Hence this Petition for
Review
ISSUES:
Whether respondents have acquired the alluvial property in question through
prescription
PROVISION:
Article 457:
o To owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion
which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the
waters (336)
RULING + RATIO:
Yes. Respondents have acquired the alluvial property through
prescription
 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 a 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.
 Petitioners never sought registration of said alluvial property (which
was formed sometime after petitioners' property covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 2982 was registered on June 9, 1934) up to
the time they instituted the present action in the Court of First
Instance of Isabela in 1958. The alluvial 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 through prescription by third persons.
DISPOSITION: Petition for review DENIED
Reynante v. CA G.R. No. 95907 April 8, 1992
Petitioner: JOSE REYNANTE
Respondents: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE
HON. VALENTIN CRUZ, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court
of Bulacan, Branch VIII, and the HEIRS OF LEONCIO CARLOS
and DOLORES A. CARLOS, and HEIRS OF GORGONIO CARLOS
and CONCEPCION CARLOS
Doctrine: Accretion does not automatically become registered land
just because the lot which receives such accretion is covered by a
Torrens Title. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing; registration
under the Torrens system of that ownership is another. To obtain this
protection, the land must be placed under the operation of the
registration laws.
FACTS:
 More than 50 years ago, petitioner Jose Reynante was taken
as tenant by the late Don Cosme Carlos, owner and father-in-
law of private respondents, over a fishpond located at Barrio
Liputan, Meycauayan, Bulacan.
 During the tenancy, Reynante constructed a nipa hut where he
and his family lived and took care of the nipa palms (sasahan)
he had planted on lots 1 and 2. These lots are located
between the fishpond and the Liputan (formerly Meycauayan)
River.
 Petitioner harvested and sold said nipa palms without
interference and prohibition from anybody. Neither did the late
Don Cosme Carlos question his right to plant the nipa palms
near the fishpond or to harvest and appropriate them as his
own.
 After the death of Don Cosme Carlos, his heirs entered into a
written agreement with petitioner Jose Reynante whereby the
latter for and in consideration of the sum of P200,000.00
turned over the fishpond he was tenanting to the heirs of Don
Cosme Carlos and surrendered all his rights therein as
caretaker.
 Pursuant to the said written agreement, petitioner surrendered
the fishpond and the two huts located therein to private
respondents. Private respondents thereafter leased the said
fishpond to one Carlos de la Cruz. Petitioner continued to live
in the nipa hut constructed by him on lots 1 and 2 and to take
care of the nipa palms he had planted therein.
 Private respondents formally demanded that the petitioner
vacate said portion since he had already been indemnified for
the surrender of his rights as a tenant. Despite this, petitioner
refused and failed to relinquish possession of lots 1 and 2.
 Private respondents filed a complaint for forcible entry with
preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioner alleging
that the latter by means of strategy and stealth, took over the
physical, actual and material possession of lots 1 and 2 by
residing in one of the kubos or huts bordering the Liputan
River and cutting off and/or disposing of the sasa or nipa
palms adjacent thereto.
PROVISION:
Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong
the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of the waters.
ISSUE:
Who between the petitioner and private respondents has prior
physical possession of lots 1 and 2
1. Whether or not the disputed lots belong to private respondents
as a result of accretion.
HELD:
1. Petitioner has clearly proven that he had prior possession over
lots 1 and 2 for more than 50 years. He caretaker of the
fishpond owned by the late Don Cosme Carlos for more than
50 years and that he constructed a nipa hut adjacent to the
fishpond and planted nipa palms therein.
2. Accretion does not automatically become registered land just
because the lot which receives such accretion is covered by a
Torrens Title. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing;
registration under the Torrens system of that ownership is
another. To obtain this protection, the land must be placed
under the operation of the registration laws.
Assuming private respondents had acquired the alluvial
deposit (the lot in question), by accretion, still their failure to
register said accretion for a period of fifty (50) years subjected
 said accretion to acquisition through prescription by third
persons.
RONQUILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS (1991)
Petitioner: Mario Ronquillo
Respondent: Court of Appeals, Director of Lands
Ponencia: Regalado, J.
DOCTRINE: The rules on alluvion do not apply to man-made or artificial
accretions nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros or
artificial drainage systems.
FACTS:
1. Rosendo del Rosario was a registered owner of a parcel of land known as
Lot 34, Block 9, Sulucan Subdivision, situated at Sampaloc, Manila and
covered by a TCT title in the Registry of Deeds of Manila.
2. Adjoining said lot is a dried-up portion of the old Estero Calubcub occupied
by the Mario Ronquillo since 1945, which is the subject matter of the present
action.
3. After a relocation survey of the land in question sometime in 1960,
Rosendo del Rosario learned that Ronquillo was occupying a portion of their
land and thus demanded that Ronquillo vacate the said land upon refusal of
Ronquillo to pay reasonable rent for occupancy.
Del Rosario claims: he was already in possession of
such land including the adjoining dried up portion at the
time TCT was issued.
Ronquillo claims: that before 1945, he was living with
his sister, who was residing or renting on del Rosarios’
lot. That in 1945, Ronquillo built his house on the
disputed dried-up portion of the Estero Calubcub with a
small portion thereof on the titled lot of the del Rosarios,
but after the house was destroyed by fire, he caused to
rebuilt the same on the portion of the old estero but
without touching part of del Rosario’s titled land.
4. Despite demand, Ronquillo refused to vacate. The Del Rosarios then filed
a complaint with the CFI of Manila praying that they be declared the riparian
owners of the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub.
TC- Del Rosario- riparian owners of the subject land. Ronquillo ordered to
deliver portion of land + rent
ISSUE: WoN Art. 370 applies (Old Civil Code- equivalent to Art 461 of
New CC)
PROVISION:
Art. 370. The beds of rivers, which are abandoned because of a natural
change in the course of the waters, belong to the owners of the riparian lands
throughout the respective length of each. If the abandoned bed divided
tenements belonging to different owners the new dividing line shall be
equidistant from one and the other.
Art. 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the
course of the waters 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
RULING + RATIO: No, Art 370 doesn’t apply.
Article 370 applies only if there is a natural change in the course of the
waters. The rules on alluvion do not apply to man-made or artificial
accretions nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros or artificial
drainage systems.
Since the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub was actually caused by the
active intervention of man (the dumping garbage therein by surrounding
neighborhoods) it follows that Article 370 does not apply to the case at bar
and, hence, the Del Rosarios cannot be entitled thereto supposedly as
riparian owners.
On the issue of the Sales Application (Patent)
The dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub should thus be considered as
forming part of the land of the public domain, which cannot be subject to
acquisition, by private ownership. Therefore, the sales applications filed by
Ronquillo and Del Rosarios are also rejected. The fact that they applied for
such, proves that they recognize such lands as public land. They are now
estopped from claiming otherwise.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from, the remaining
effective portion of which declares private respondents Del Rosarios as
riparian owners of the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Baes v. Court Of Appeals (1993)
Petitioner: Spouses Felix Baes And Rafaela Baes
Respondent: The Court Of Appeals And Republic Of The Philippines
Ponencia: Cruz, J.
DOCTRINE: If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage
to or loss of his property due to natural causes, there is all the more reason
to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is effected
through artificial means.
FACTS:
7. 1962: The government dug a canal on a private parcel of land (Lot
2958) to streamline the Tripa de Gallina creek which was later
acquired by Baes subdividing it into three lots (Lots 2958-A, 2958-B
and 2958-C)
8. In exchange for Lot 2958-B, which occupied the canal, the
government gave Baes a lot with exactly the same area via a Deed
of Exchange of Real Property. It was registered in the name of Baes.
9. Meanwhile, Baes submitted a petition for the approval of a resurvey
and subdivision plan (for Lots 2958-A and 2958-C) which was later
approved by the CFI of Pasay City.
10. Republic of the Philippines discovered that Lot 1-B (a product of the
resurvey and subdivision plan) on which the petitioners erected an
apartment building filled up portion of the Tripa de Gallina creek and
that Lot 2958-C was unlawfully enlarged. It filed a petition for
cancellation of the corresponding TCT’s.
11. No dispute as to the unlawfully enlarged lot. The main dispute was
that of Lot 1-B.
12. Baes: Relying on Art. 461, he claims that the land is his own. While
the Republic avers that the petitioners have already been
compensated.
ISSUES:
1. WON the disputed lot belongs to Baes.
PROVISION: Art. 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural
change in the course of the waters 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. (370a)
RULING + RATIO:
1. No
 Dr. Artuto Tolentino’s interpretation to 461:
o “…refers to a natural change in the course of a stream. If the
change of the course is due to works constructed by
concessioners authorized by the government, the
concession may grant the abandoned river bed to the
concessioners. If there is no such grant, then, by analogy,
the abandoned river bed will belong to the owners of the
land covered by the waters as provided in the article…”
 If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or
loss of his property due to natural causes, there is all the more
reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the
river is effected through artificial means.
o The loss to the petitioners of the land covered by the canal
was the result of a deliberate act on the part of the
government when it sought to improve the flow of the Tripa
de Gallina creek. It was therefore obligated to compensate
the Baeses for their loss.
 However, petitioners have already been so compensated.
o Felix Baes was given Lot 3271-A in exchange for the
affected Lot 2958-B through the Deed of Exchange of Real
Property.
 The exchange of lots between the petitioners and the Republic was
the result of voluntary negotiations. If these had failed, the
government could still have taken Lot 2958-B under the power of
eminent domain, upon payment of just compensation, as the land
was needed for a public purpose.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against the
petitioners.
 JAGUALING vs. COURT OF APPEALS (1991)
Petitioner: Maximo Jagualing, Anuncita Jagualing and Misamis Oriental Concrete
Products Inc.
Respondent: Court of Appeals (Fifteenth Division), Janita F. Eduave and
Rudygondo Eduave
Ponencia: Gancayco, J.
DOCTRINE: Island belongs to the owner of the land along the nearer
margin as sole owner thereof
FACTS:
13. Janita EDUAVE inherited a 16,452 square meter land from her
father. In 1964, the land eroded due to typhoon Ineng, wherein the
river control was washed away causing the formation of the island
subject of dispute. Due to the movement of the river deposits, there
was an increase to the land area almost half a hectare.
14. EDUAVE permitted JAGUALINGs to plant corn and bananas
provided they prevent squatters to enter the area
15. EDUAVE performed other acts of ownership such as: engaging
services of surveyor, paying taxes, mortgaging the land to Luzon
Surety and Co for consideration of P6,000 and applying for
concession with the Bureau of Mines to extract 200 cubic meters of
gravel (permit was granted)
16. Problem arose when JAGUALINGs denied EDUAVE's claim of
ownership. According to them, they were the real owners of the land
and that they started occupying the land since 1969 evidenced by
tax declarations, tax receipts and tax clearances. They even
presented a photograph of the land with improvements therein.
17. A sketch plan by Eng. Escalderon showed that EDUAVE's land was
across the land in litigation, and one has to cross a distance of about
68 meters from the Tagaloan river to reach the land in litigation.
18. RTC ruled that the land was a delta, belonging to public domain.
However, they recognized the validity of JAGUALINGs' possession
and gave them preferential rights.
19. CA on the other hand reversed the RTC's ruling and declared
EDUAVE the lawful and true owner of the land
ISSUES:
 WoN respondents Junita and Rudygondo EDUAVE are the lawful
and true owners of the land in dispute
 WoN petitioners JAGUALING may claim land under the doctrine of
acquisitive prescription
PROVISION: ARTICLE 463, ARTICLE 465
RULING + RATIO:
YES, they are lawful and true owners.
 Article 463 was properly applied by the CA, which allows ownership
over a portion of land separated or isolated by river movement to be
retained by the owner thereof prior to such separation or isolation.
o Evidence shows that the property of EDUAVE actually
existed and was identified prior to the branching off or
division of the river
 The parcel of land is part of an island formed in a non-navigable and
non-floatable river. Thus the CA also did not err in applying Article
465.
o Because the island is longer than the property of EDUAVE,
they are deemed ipso jure to be the owners of that portion
which corresponds to the length of their property along the
margin of the river.
o Lands formed by accretion belong to the riparian owner.
They are in the best position to cultivate and attend to the
exploitation of the same.
 If no specific act of possession over the accretion is acquired, the
land may yield to the adverse possession of third parties.
No, they cannot claim the land under the doctrine of acquisitive
prescription.
 Their possession cannot be considered in good faith. Thus, they
may only acquire it through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30
years.
 They have only been in possession of the property for 15 years.
DISPOSITION: Petition denied. CA decision affirmed. Respondents are
rightful owners of the land.
** This is a case between a riparian owner and the one in possession of the
island. It is not between parties as opposing riparian owners
 Office of the City Mayor of Parañaque City v. Ebio alluvial property automatically belongs to the owner of the estate to
Petitioner: Office of the City Mayor of Paranaque City which it may have been added.
Respondent: Ebio o The only restriction provided for by law is that the owner of
Ponencia: Villarama Jr., J. the adjoining property must register the same under the
Torrens system; otherwise, the alluvial property may be
DOCTRINE: subject through prescription by third persons.
While it is true that a creek is a property of public dominion, the land which is  Respondents are deemed to have acquired ownership over the
formed by the gradual and imperceptible accumulation of sediments along its subject property thru prescription.
banks does not form part of the public domain by clear provision of law. o Respondent can assert such right despite the fact that they
have yet to register the title of the lot.
FACTS: o (They already own the land; they just need to register it.)
20. Respondents claim that they are the absolute owners of a parcel of
land in Barangay Vitalez, Parañaque. DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. Judgment AFFIRMED.
a. Even though they haven’t registered the land, they claim that
their predecessor-in-interest have been occupying it since
1930.
b. Evidence used were tax declarations dating from 1966.
c. Said land is an accretion of Cut-cut creek.
21. The Office of the Sangguiniang Barangay of Vitalez passed
Resolution No. 08.
22. Said resolution seeks the assistance of the City Government of
Parañaque for the construction of an access road along Cut-cut
creek.
a. The proposed road, projected to be 8m wide and 60m long,
will run from Urma Drive to the main road of Vitalez
Compund traversing the lot of respondents.
23. One day, respondents were surprised when several officials
proceeded to cut 8 coconut trees planted on the said lot.
24. Threatened to be evicted, respondents filed an action for a writ of
preliminary injunction against petitioners.

ISSUES:
 WoN the respondents are the true owners of the land.

PROVISION:
Art. 84 of the Spanish Law of Waters:
Accretions deposited gradually upon lands contiguous to the creeks,
streams, rivers, and lakes, by accessions or sediments from the waters
thereof, belong to the owners of such lands.

RULING + RATIO:
YES,
 The subject land was formed by the alluvial deposits that have
gradually settled along the banks of Cut-cut creek.
 Based on rt. 84 of the Spanish Law of Waters, alluvial deposits along
the bank of a creek do not form part of the public domain as the
 Ramos v IAC
Petitioner: Brigido Ramos and Felicidad Juan
Respondent: IAC, Rodolfo Ramos and Gertrudes Mercado
Ponencia: Regalado, J.

DOCTRINE:
River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of
the waters ipso facto belong to the owners of the land occupied by the new
course.

FACTS:
25. A parcel of land owned in Bulacan came into the ownership of
Rodolfo Ramos through an application filed with the Land Authority.
26. Such ownership is sought to be cancelled by petitioner spouses.
a. Their contention is that they acquired the properties from
Patricio Cruz and that the property was titled in the name of
Rodolfo Ramos for convenience and trust.
27. The SC, however, found that these contentions by petitioners were
inconsistent and that Rodolfo was the true owner of the land.
28. Despite such inconsistent postures, petitioners changed their
argument.
29. The petitioners now contend that the land in dispute, being
supposedly a part of an abandoned river bed, is automatically owned
by them as owners of the adjoining lot.

ISSUES:
 WoN the new contention of petitioners is meritorious.

PROVISION:
Article 461 of CC
“river beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of
the waters ipso facto belong to the owners of the land occupied by the new
course.”

RULING + RATIO:
NO.
 Article 461 provides that “river beds which are abandoned through
the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to
the owners of the land occupied by the new course” with the owners
of the adjoining lots having the right to acquire them only after
paying their value.
 Besides, the issue was only raised during the appeal.

DISPOSITION: Decision AFFIRMED.