Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

11. SPOUSES DEL CAMPO V.

ABESIA
160 SCRA 379
Jul4

defendants to pay the price of the land occupied by and in 1993, OCT was issued in her name by the DAR.
their house. However, if the price asked for is However, respondents with the help of hired persons
considerably much more than the value of the portion entered the property and built a wall behind and in
of the house of defendants built thereon, then the latter
front of Elviras house. Elvira and Ray sued
cannot be obliged to buy the land. The defendants shall
Facts:
then pay the reasonable rent to the plaintiff upon such respondents for quieting of title and declaration of
This case involves a parcel of land, situated at the terms and conditions that they may agree. In case of ownership. Respondents averred that they were cocorner of F. Flores and Cavan Streets, Cebu City. An disagreement, the trial court shall fix the terms thereof. owners of the land with Esperanza who allegedly
action for partition was filed by plaintiffs in the CFI of Of course, defendants may demolish or remove the saidinherited the land from Martin 1 together with Tomas
Cebu. Plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners pro portion of their house, at their own expense, if they so and Inocencia (Martin 2s and Romeos predecessor in
indiviso of this lot in the proportion of and 1/3 share decide.
interest). They argued that Esperanza could not have
each, respectively. The trial court appointed a
validly waived her rights in favor of Elvira and Ray.
commissioner in accordance with the agreement of the Article 448 of the New Civil Code provides as follows:
MCTC ruled for Elvira. RTC reversed MCTC and
parties. ,the Id commissioner conducted a survey,
Art.
448.
The
owner
of
the
land
on
which
anything
has
declared respondents lawful owners of the land
prepared a sketch plan and submitted a report to the
been
built,
sown,
or
planted
in
good
faith,
shall
have
together with the other heirs of Martin I. Elvira went to
trial court on May 29, 1976, recommending that the
the
right
to
appropriate
as
his
own
the
works,
sowing
the CA but the CA affirmed the RTC decision. Before
property be divided into two lots: Lot 1161-A with an
area of 30 square meters for plaintiffs and Lot No. or planting, after payment of the indemnity providedSC, Elvira argued that both RTC and CA erred in
1161-B with an area of 15 square meters for the for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who declaring the affidavit of Esperanza void because it is a
defendants. The houses of plaintiffs and defendants built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the valid and binding proof of transfer of ownership of the
were surveyed and shown on the sketch plan. The one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder
house of defendants occupied the portion with an area or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value subject property as it was coupled with actual delivery.
of 5 square meters of Lot 1161-A of plaintiffs. The is considerably more than that of the building or trees.
parties manifested their conformity to the report and In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner ISSUE: Whether or not the donation to Elvira and her
asked the trial court to finally settle and adjudicate who of the land does not choose to appropriate the building husband is valid.
among the parties should take possession of the 5 or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree
upon the terms of the lease and in case of
square meters of the land in question.
disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
HELD: Supreme Court affirmed the decision of CA. SC
ruled that the affidavit executed by Esperanza wherein
Issue: Whether or Not Article 448 of the Civil Code is
she renounced, relinquished and waived all her rights,
applicable to a builder in good faith when the property
12.
Elvira
Arangote
vs.
Spouses
Martin
and
Lourdes
share, interest and participation in the subject property
involved is owned in common.
Maglunob and Romeo Salido;
in favor of Elvira and Ray is in fact a donation. Thus, it
should have complied with the requirements of Article
Held: When the co-ownership is terminated by the
G.R.
No.
178906;
February
18,
2009

749 of the Civil Code. A simple donation of real


partition and it appears that the house of defendants
overlaps or occupies a portion of 5 square meters of the
property to be valid: 1) Must be made in a public
land pertaining to plaintiffs which the defendants FACTS: Elvira Arangote acquired the subject parcel of instrument; 2) It must be accepted, which must be in
obviously built in good faith, then the provisions of land from Esperanza Maglunob, who is grand aunt of the same deed of donation or in a separate public
Article 448 of the new Civil Code should apply.
respondents Martin Maglunob and Romeo Salido. Ininstrument; 3) If the acceptance is made in a separate
Manresa and Navarro Amandi agree that the said
provision of the Civil Code may apply even when there June 1986, Esperenza executed an affidavit in whichinstrument, the donor must be notified in authentic
was co-ownership if good faith has been established. she renounced her rights, share and participation in form and the same must be noted in both instruments.
the land in favor of Elvira and her husband. It appears The affidavit executed by Esperanza relinquishing her
Applying the aforesaid provision of the Civil Code, the that the lot was not exclusive property of Esperanza but rights, share and participation over the property in
plaintiffs have the right to appropriate said portion of also of the other heirs of Martin I whom she favor of Elvira suffered from legal infirmities. In
the house of defendants upon payment of indemnity torepresented in the partition agreement. Elvira and herSumipat vs. Banga, the Court ruled that title to
defendants as provided for in Article 546 of the Civil husband, Ray constructed a house on the land in 1989 immovable does not pass from the donor to the done
Code. Otherwise, the plaintiffs may oblige the

by virtue of a Deed of Donation until and unless it has Menesis, then the Mayor of Los Baos, using his de Bay, nor a foreshore land as claimed by the Director
been accepted in a public instrument and the donor brother Pablito as a tool and dummy, illegally of Lands, it is not a public land and therefore capable of
duly notified thereof. In this case, the acceptance of the occupied their private accretion land andregistration as private property provided that the
donation was not made by Elvira either in the sameconfederating with District Land Officer Darum andapplicant proves that he has a registerable title.
affidavit or in a separate public instrument. Neither Land Inspector Almendral, obtained free patents and Additionally, the provision of the law on waters will
was there notice of acceptance given to the donor, OCTs to the land. In 1984, the trial court rendered the govern in determining the natural bed or basin of the
therefore the donation is void.
decision finding that the lands registered by the lake. And accordingly, to Art. 84 of the Law of Waters
Meneses brothers are accretion lands to which the of August 3, 1866: Accretions deposited gradually upon
Quisumbings have a valid right as owners of the land contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers and lakes by
13.MENESES vs. CA et al
riparian land to which nature had gradually deposited accessions or sediments from the waters thereof,
the disputed lots. (The lots occupied by Meneses, asbelong to the owners of such lands. As pointed out by
G.R. No. 82220
found by the court, are to be accretion lands forming the lower court, no act of appropriation is necessary in
parts of the bigger accretion land owned by the order to acquire ownership of the alluvial formation as
July 14, 1995
Quisumbings. ) Meanwhile, the Meneses brothers and the law does not require the same.
Darum appealed the to the CA, which affirmed in toto
FACTS: On March 1, 1977, Darum, then the District
the lower courts decision.The defendants-appellants 2. As found by the CA, petitioners conspired in the
Land Officer of Los Baos, Laguna, issued to Pablito
filed two MRs of the CA decision but it was denied, approval and grant of the free patents heirs
Meneses 2 Free Patent and 2 OCT covering lots located
hence this petition for review on certiorari.
Quisumbing. Such fraud was confirmed by this Court
in Los Baos, Laguna. Pablito acquired said property
in Meneses v. People, which held the petitioners
from Bautista through a Deed of Waiver and Transfer
ISSUE: WON
therein liable for violation of the Anti-Graft and
of Rights executed in 1975 in consideration of
Corrupt Practices Act in the issuance of the same free
Bautistas love and affection for and some monetary
patents and titles. In due course, the Sandiganbayan
1.
The
lands
in
question
were
not
accretion
lands
but
obligations in favor of Meneses. After the execution of
rendered a decision finding the defendants guilty as
lands
of
the
public
domain
said document, Meneses took possession of the land,
charged. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.
introduced improvements thereon, declared the land as
his own for tax purposes and paid the corresponding 2. Conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit and bad faith
realty taxes. In turn, Bautista acquired the land from attended the issuance of the free patent and titles to NoTES:
his aunt. He had been occupying the land since 1956. Pablito Meneses; and
1. Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under
On the other hand, the Quisumbing family traces
ownership of their land as far back as 1919 when their HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. TheArticle 457 of the Civil Code requires the concurrence
of these requisites:
matriarch was issued an OCT covering a lot, with the Decision CA is AFFIRMED
Laguna de Bay as its northwestern boundary. The same
parcel of land was registered on 1973 under a TCT in While the lots occupied by Villamor and Lanuzo may (1) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual
the names of her heirs, all surnamed Quisumbing. The not be the very same lots petitioners are claiming here, and imperceptible;
Quisumbings applied for registration and confirmationthe two cases refer to the same accretion lands
of title over an additional area which had gradually northwest of the original land owned by the(2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the
accrued to their property by the natural action of the Quisumbings. The submersion in water of a portion of river (or sea); and
waters of Laguna de Bay. The CFI of Bian confirmedthe land in question is due to the rains falling directly
the Quisumbings title thereto. In 1979, theon or flowing into Laguna de Bay from different (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent
Quisumbings filed a case before the CFI of Calamba sources. Since the inundation of a portion of the landto the banks of rivers (or the sea coast).
against Lorenzo and Pablito Meneses, Darum and is not due to flux and reflux of tides it cannot be
Almendral for nullification of the free patents and titles considered a foreshore land. The land sought to be 2. The task of fixing the amount of damages is
issued to Pablito Meneses. They alleged that Lorenzo registered not being part of the bed or basin of Laguna primarily with the trial court. While it is the appellate

courts duty to review the same, a reduction of the by the Bureau of Lands of the survey plan designated as PREVAILING FACTS AND THE LAW ON THE
award of damages must pass the test of reasonableness. Plan Csd-106-00571 with a view to perfecting his title MATTER;
The CA can only modify or change the amount awarded over the accretion area being claimed by him. Before II. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS IN A
as damages when they are palpably or scandalously andthe approved survey plan could be released to theWHIMSICAL, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS
reasonably excessive.
applicant, however, it was protested by private MANNER AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
respondents
before
the
Bureau
of
Lands. LOWER COURT DISMISSING THE ORIGINAL CASE
3. A public official is by law not immune from damages Upon investigation of the Regional Director of the WHICH FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE
in his personal capacity for acts done in bad faith Bureau of Land, it was recommended that Survey Plan EXECUTION ORDER OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT
which, being outside the scope of his authority, are no No. MSI-10-06-000571-D (equivalent to Lot No. ABELARDO G. PALAD, JR., DIRECTOR OF LANDS,
longer protected by the mantle of immunity for official 36302, Cad. 237) in the name of Antonio Nazareno, be MANILA, PRACTICALLY CHANGED THE DECISION
actions.
cancelled and that private respondents be directed to OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT ROBERTO HILARIO,
file
appropriate
public
land
applications. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LANDS,
Antonio Nazareno filed a motion for reconsideration REGION 10, THUS MAKING THE CASE PROPER
with the Department of Natural Resources who denied SUBJECT FOR ANNULMENT WELL WITHIN THE
the motion. Respondent Director of Lands then JURISDICTION
OF
THE
LOWER
COURT.
14. DESAMPARADO VDA. DE NAZARENO and ordered him to vacate the portions adjudicated to
respondents
and
remove
whatever RULING:
LETICIA
NAZARENO
TAPIA,
petitioners, private
improvements
they
have
introduced
thereon.
He also The resolution of the above issues, however, hinges on
vs.
ordered
that
private
respondents
be
placed
in the question of whether or not the subject land is
THE COURT OF APPEALS, MR. & MRS. JOSE
thereof.public land. Petitioners claim that the subject land is
SALASALAN, MR. & MRS. LEO RABAYA, AVELINOpossession
Upon
the
denial
of
the
late
Antonio
Nazareno's
motion private land being an accretion to his titled property,
LABIS, HON. ROBERTO G. HILARIO, ROLLEO I.
for
reconsideration,
petitioners
Desamparado
Vda.
de applying Article 457 of the Civil Code which provides:
IGNACIO, ALBERTO M. GILLERA and HON.
ABELARDO G. PALAD, JR., in their official and/or Nazareno and Leticia Tapia Nazareno, filed a case To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers
before the RTC, Branch 22 for annulment of thebelong the accretion which they gradually receive from
private capacities, respondents.
following: order of investigation by respondent Gillera, the effects of the current of the waters.
report and recommendation by respondent Labis,In the case of Meneses v. CA, 2 this Court held that
G.R.
No.
98045
June
26,
1996
decision by respondent Hilario, order by respondent accretion, as a mode of acquiring property under Art.
Ignacio affirming the decision of respondent Hilario457 of the Civil Code, requires the concurrence of these
FACTS:
and order of execution by respondent Palad. The RTC requisites : (1) that the deposition of soil or sediment
dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of
Sometime in 1979, private respondents Jose Salasalan
administrative remedies which resulted in the finality the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and (3)
and Leo Rabaya leased the subject lots on which their
of the administrative decision of the Bureau of Lands. that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to
houses stood from one Antonio Nazareno, petitioners'
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision the banks of rivers (or the sea coast). These are called
predecessor-in-interest. In the latter part of 1982,
of
the
RTC
dismissing
the
complaint. the rules on alluvion which if present in a case, give to
private respondents allegedly stopped paying rentals.
Hence,
this
petition.the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers or
As a result, Antonio Nazareno and petitioners filed a
streams any accretion gradually received from the
case for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court of
ISSUES:
effects
of
the
current
of
waters.
Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 4. A decision was
Petitioners
assign
the
following
errors: Furthermore, the Bureau of Lands classified the subject
rendered against private respondents, which decision
I. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS IN A land as an accretion area which was formed by deposits
was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court of Misamis
WHIMSICAL, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUSof sawdust in the Balacanas Creek and the Cagayan
Oriental,
Branch
20.
MANNER AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE river, in accordance with the ocular inspection
Before he died, Antonio Nazareno caused the approval
LOWER COURT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THEconducted
by
the
Bureau
of
Lands.

the death of her father on 5 May 1949, Eduave had agreement with Tagoloan Aggregates to extract sand
This Court has often enough held that findings of been in possession of the property although the tax and gravel, which agreement was registered in the
administrative agencies which have acquired expertise declaration remains in the name of the deceased father. office
of
the
Register
of
Deeds.
because their jurisdiction is confined to specific The entire land had an area of 16,452 sq. m. appearing Maximo and Anuncita Jagualing assert that they are
matters are generally accorded not only respect but in the deed of extrajudicial partition, while in tax the real owners of the land in litigation containing an
even finality. Again, when said factual findings are declaration the area is only 4,937 sq. m., and she area
of
18,000
sq.
m.
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the same are reasoned out that she included the land that was under During the typhoon Ineng in 1964 the river control was
conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this water.
washed away causing the formation of an island.
Court.
The land was eroded sometime in November 1964 due Jagualing started occupying the land in 1969, paid land
It is this Court's irresistible conclusion, therefore, that to typhoon Ineng, destroying the bigger portion and taxes as evidenced by tax declaration 26380 and tax
the accretion was man-made or artificial. In the case at the improvements leaving only a coconut tree. receipts, and tax clearances. Actual occupation of the
bar, the subject land was the direct result of theIn 1966 due to the movement of the river deposits on land by Jagualing included improvements and the
dumping of sawdust by the Sun Valley Lumber Co. the land that was not eroded increased the area to house.
consequent
to
its
sawmill
operations.almost half a hectare and in 1970 Eduave started to Rudygondo and Janita Eduave filed with the RTC
Having determined that the subject land is public land, plant
banana
trees. Misamis Oriental an action to quiet title and/or remove
a fortiori, the Bureau of Lands, as well as the Office of In 1973, Maximo and Anuncita Jagualing asked hera cloud over the property in question against Jagualing.
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resourcespermission to plant corn and bananas provided that On 17 July 1987 the trial court dismissed the complaint
have jurisdiction over the same in accordance with the they prevent squatters to come to the area. for failure of Eduave to establish by preponderance of
Public
Land
Law. Eduave engaged the services of a surveyor whoevidence their claim of ownership over the land in
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of conducted a survey and placed concrete monuments litigation.
merit.
over the land. Eduave also paid taxes on the land in The court found that the island is a delta forming part
SO ORDERED.
litigation, and mortgaged the land to the Luzon Surety of the river bed which the government may use to
and Co., for a consideration of P6,000.00. reroute, redirect or control the course of the Tagoloan
The land was the subject of a reconveyance case, in theRiver. Accordingly, it held that it was outside the
CFI Misamis Oriental (Branch V, Cagayan de Oro City, commerce of man and part of the public domain, citing
15. Jagualing v. CA
Civil Case 5892), between Janita Eduave vs. Heirs of Article 420 of the Civil Code. As such it cannot be
Antonio Factura, which was the subject of judgment by registered under the land registration law or be
compromise in view of the amicable settlement of the acquired by prescription. The trial court, however,
FACTS:
parties,
dated
31
May
1979. recognized the validity of Jagualing's possession and
A certain parcel of land is located in Sta. Cruz,
The heirs of Antonio Factura had ceded a portion of thegave them preferential rights to use and enjoy the
Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental with an area of 16,452 sq.
land with an area of 1,289 sq. m., to Janita Eduave in a property. The trial court added that should the State
m., forming part of an island in a non-navigable river,
notarial document of conveyance, pursuant to the allow the island to be the subject of private ownership,
bounded by the Tagoloan river on the north, south, and
decision of the CFI, after a subdivision of the lot 62 Pls- the Jagualings have rights better than that of Eduave.
east and by the portion belonging to Vicente Neri on
799, and containing 1,289 sq. m. was designated as Lot On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court found that
the
west.
62-A, and the subdivision plan was approved as Pls- the island was formed by the branching off of the
Janita Eduave claims that she inherited the land from
799-Psd-10-001782.
Tagoloan River and subsequent thereto the
her father, Felomino Factura, together with his coaccumulation of alluvial deposits. Basing its ruling on
heirs, Reneiro Factura and Aldenora Factura, and
Eduave also applied for concession with the Bureau of Articles 463 and 465 of the Civil Code, the Court of
acquired sole ownership of the property by virtue of a
Mines to extract 200 m3 of grave, and after an ocular Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court,
Deed of Extra Judicial Partition with sale.
inspection
the
permit
was
granted. declared Eduave as the lawful and true owners of the
The land is declared for tax purposes under Tax
Eduave, after permit was granted, entered into an land subject of the case and ordered Jagualing to
Declaration 26137 with an area of 16,452 sq. m. Since

outcrop of land, it increased to its present size due to


vacate the premises and deliver possession of the land
to
Eduave. Eduave filed an action to quiet title and/or remove a the gradual and successive accumulation of alluvial
Hence,
the
present
petition.cloud over the property in question against Jagualing. deposits. In this regard the CA also did not err in
RTC dismissed the complaint for failure of Eduave to applying Article 465 of the Civil Code. Under this
establish by preponderance of evidence their claim of provision, the island belongs to the owner of the land
ownership over the land in litigation and that the landalong the nearer margin as sole owner thereof; or more
RULING:
is a delta thus is part of public domain not susceptible accurately, because the island is longer than the
The Supreme Court found no error committed by the of appropriation.
property of private respondents, they are deemed ipso
appellate court, denied the petition for lack of sufficient
jure to be the owners of that portion which corresponds
merit, and affirmed the decision of the Court of
to the length of their property along the margin of the
Appeals; without pronouncement as to costs.
The CA found that the island was formed by the river.
branching off of the river and subsequent thereto the
accumulation of alluvial deposits. Basing its ruling on
Articles 463 and 465 of the Civil Code the Court of It is well-settled that lands formed by accretion belong
Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, to the riparian owner. This preferential right is, under
JAGUALING V. CA
declared private respondents as the lawful and trueArticle 465, also granted the owners of the land located
FACTS:
owners of the land subject of this case and orderedin the margin nearest the formed island for the reason
Eduave claims that she inherited a parcel of land from petitioners to vacate the premises and deliver that they are in the best position to cultivate and attend
her parents, which later increased in size due to erosion possession of the land to private respondents.
to the exploitation of the same. In fact, no specific act
caused by typhoon Ineng. In 1973 Jagualing asked her
of possession over the accretion is required. If,
permission to plant corn and bananas provided that
however, the riparian owner fails to assert his claim
they prevent squatters to come to the area.
thereof, the same may yield to the adverse possession
of third parties, as indeed even accretion to land titled
ISSUE:
under the torrens system must itself still be registered.
The land was the subject of a reconveyance case Whether or not Jagualing acquired the island thru
between Janita Eduave vs. Heirs of Antonio Facturaprescription?
However, Jagualing failed to prove adverse possession
which was the subject of judgment by compromise in
of the land for the required period and their possession
view of the amicable settlement of the parties. In the
cannot be considered in good faith since by their
amicable settlement the heirs of Antonio Factura
admission they have recognized Eduaves ownership
(Jagualing), ceded a portion of the land with an area of HELD: No.
over the land. Thus the land still belongs to Eduave.
1,289 square meters more or less to Eduave.
From the evidence thus submitted, CA had sufficient
basis for the finding that the property of Eduave Islands formed by accretion belong to the riparian
Later, Jagualing denied the claim of ownership of actually existed and was identified prior to the owner nearest to its margin. However such accretion
Eduave, and asserted that they are the real owners of branching off or division of the river. The CA, may be lost to third parties thru prescription.
the land in litigation containing an area of 18,000 therefore, properly applied Article 463 of the Civil Code
square meters more or less. According to them, they which allows the ownership over a portion of land
acquired the land by acquisitive prescription since they separated or isolated by river movement to be retained
have occupied the land since 1969. They presented tax by the owner thereof prior to such separation or
declarations and photos of actual occupation to prove isolation. The parcel of land in question is part of an 16. Agustin v. IAC
claim of prescription.
island that formed in a non-navigable and non-flotable
river; from a small mass of eroded or segregated

Facts: The Cagayan River separates the towns of


of such accretions even after they were separated from
Solana on the west and Tuguegarao on the east in the On 16 June 1975, the trial court rendered a decision in the principal lots by
province of Cagayan. In 1919 the lands east of the river Civil Case 343-T, ordering Eulogio Agustin,Gregorio the sudden change of course of the river, is a finding of
were covered by the Tuguegarao Cadastre. In 1925, Tuliao, Jacinto Buquel and Octavio Bancud, their fact which is
OCT 5472 was issued for land east of the Cagayan River representatives or agents to vacate Lot 3351 of Solana conclusive on this Court. That finding is supported by
owned by Eulogio Agustin.
Cadastre together with its accretion consisting of Art. 457 of the New
portions of Lots 9463, 9462 and 9461 of Tuguegarao Civil Code which provides that "to the owners of lands
As the years went by, the Cagayan River moved Cadastre and to restore ownership in favor of Maria adjoining the banks
gradually eastward, depositing silt on the western Melad and Timoteo Melad who
of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually
bank. The shifting of the river and the siltationare the only interested heirs of Macario Melad. The receive from the effects
continued until 1968. In 1950, all lands west of the trial court likewise ordered, in Civil Case 344-T, Justo of the current of the waters. (366)"
river were included in the Solana Cadastre. Among Adduru, Andres Pastor, Teofilo Tagacay, Vicente
these occupying lands covered by the Solana Cadastre Camilan, Nicanor Mora, Baldomero Cagurangan, 2. Conditions for accretion to benefit a riparian
were Pablo Binayug and Maria Melad. Binayug was in Domingo Quilang, Cesar Cabalza, Elias Macababbad, owner Accretion
possession since 1947 of Lots 3349, 7875 to 7879, 7881 Titong Macababbad, Arturo Balisi, Jose
benefits a riparian owner when the following requisites
to 7885, 7891 and 7892. It is has an area of 8 hectares Allabun, Eulogio Agustin, Banong Aquino, Juniorare present: (1) that
planted to tobacco and corn and another 12 hectares Cambri and Juan Langoay, their representatives or the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it
overgrown with talahib. Binayug's Homestead agents to vacate Lots 3349, 7875 to 7879, 7881 to 7885, resulted from the effects
Application W-79055 over this land was approved in 7891 and 7892, together with its accretion and to of the current of the water; and (3) that the land where
1959 and his possession recognized in the decision in restore possession to Pablo Binayug and Geronimo accretion takes place
Civil Case 101. On the other hand, as a result of Civil Urbina. Without pronouncement as to damages which is adjacent to the bank of a river (Republic vs. CA, 132
Case 343-T, Macario Melad, the predecessor-in-were not properly proven and to costs.
SCRA 514). In the
interest of Maria Melad and Timoteo Melad, was issued
present case, the accretion on the western bank of the
OCTP-5026 for Lot 3351 of Cad. 293 on 1 June 1956. Eulogio Agustin appealed the decision in Civil Case Cagayan River had
Through the years, the Cagayan River eroded lands of 343-T, while Eulogio Agustin, Baldomero Cagurangan been going on from 1919 up to 1968 or for a period of
the Tuguegarao Cadastre on its eastern bank among (substituted by his heir), Arturo Balisi and Juan 49 years. It was
which was Agustin's Lot 8457, depositing the alluvium Langcay appealed the decision in Civil Case 344-T. But gradual and imperceptible. Only when Lot 3351, with
as accretion on the land possessed by Binayug on the upon motion of the Melads, Binayug and Urbina, the an original area of 5
western bank. However, in 1968, after a big flood, the trial court ordered on 15 August 1975
hectares described in the free patent that was issued to
Cagayan River changed its course, returned to its 1919 the execution pending appeal of the judgment in Civil Macario Melad in
bed, and, in the process, cut across the lands of Maria Case 344-T against Cagurangan, Balisi and Langcay onJune 1956, was resurveyed in 1968 did it become
Melad, Timoteo Melad, and the spouses Pablo Binayug the ground that their appeal was dilatory as they had known that 6.6 hectares
and Geronima Ubina whose lands were transferred on not presented evidence at the trial. On 29 November had been added to it. Lot 3351, covered by a homestead
the eastern, or Tuguegarao, side of the river. To 1983, the Intermediate Appellate Court rendered a patent issued in
cultivate those lots they had to cross the river. In April decision affirming in toto the judgment of the trial June 1950 to Pablo Binayug, grew from its original area
1969, while the Melads, Binayug, Urbina and theircourt, with costs against the Agustin, Cagurangan,of 18 hectares, by an
tenants were planting corn on their lots located on the Balisi and Langcay. Hence, the petition for review. The additional 50 hectares through alluvium as the
eastern side of the Cagayan River, Agustin, the Heirs of Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, Cagayan River gradually
Baldomero Langcay, Juan Langcay, and Arturo Balisi, and affirmed the decision of the IAC, now CA; withmoved to the east. These accretions belong to riparian
accompanied by the mayor and some policemen ofcosts against Agustin, et.al.
owners upon whose
Tuguegarao, claimed the same lands as their own and
lands the alluvial deposits were made (Roxas vs.
drove away the Melads, Binayug and Urbina from the 1. Findings of fact of the Court of Appeal Tuason, 9 Phil. 408;
premises. On 21 April 1970, Maria and Timoteo Melad conclusive with the Supreme
Director of Lands vs. Rizal, 87 Phil. 806).
filed a complaint (Civil Case343-T) to recover Lot 3351 Court The finding of the Court of Appeals that there
with an area of 5 hectares and its 6.6-hectare accretion. had been accretions to
3. Reason for the principle of accretion
On 24 April 1970, Pablo Binayug filed a separatethe lots of the Melads, Binauyg and Urbina who did not benefiting a riparian owner The
complaint (Civil Case 344-T) to recover his lots and lose the ownership
reason for the principle is because, if lands bordering
their accretions.
on streams are exposed

to floods and other damage due to the destructive force Bellosillo, J.


action. The first three are present. There is identity of
of the waters, and if
parties in the case. What is required is not absolute but
by virtue of law they are subject to encumbrances and
substantial identity of parties. In the case, Rosete is a
various kinds of
successor in interest of Babol by title. Nevertheless,
easements, it is only just that such risks or dangers as
there is no identity of cause of action. CC 926 is a
Doctrine:
A
judgment
in
forcible
entry
or
detainer
may prejudice the
owners thereof should in some way be compensated by case disposes of no other issue than possession and complaint of forcible entry or accion interdictal where
the right of
declares only who has the right of possession, but by nothe issue is physical or material possession of real
accretion (Cortes vs. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567).
means constitutes a bar to an action for determination property. In this case, Javier merely claimed a better
right or prior possession over the land without
of who has the right or title of ownership.
4. Ownership of accretion not lost upon sudden
asserting title. CC 2203-0 is an action to recover a
and abrupt change of
parcel of land or accion reivindicatori. In this case,
the river The' ownership of the accretion to the lands
Javier expressly alleged ownership (by virtue of the
was not lost upon the
sudden and abrupt change of the course of the river Facts: On January 1963, Javier filed a Miscellaneous Original Certificate of Title issued) and specifically
(Cagayan River in 1968
Sales Application for Lot No. 1641, Ts 308 of Olongapo prayed that she be declared the rightful owner and be
or 1969 when it reverted to its old 1919 bed), and Townsite Subdivision in Olongapo City. On December given possession of the disputed portion. A judgement
separated or transferred
1970, Javier filed Civil Case no. 926 (CC 926) for in forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other
said accretions to the other side (or eastern bank) of
forcible entry against Ben Babol for entering a portion issue than possession and declares only who has the
the river. Articles 459
right of possession, but by no means constitutes a bar
and 463 of the New Civil Code apply to this situation. of the southwestern part of Lot 1641, Ts 308. The case
Article 459 provides
was dismissed since the court considered the portion to an action for determination of who has the right or
that whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent outside Lot 1461. The case became final and executorytitle of ownership.
segregates from an
on April 1973. Subsequently, Javier was granted
estate on its bank a known portion of land and
Miscellaneous Sales Patent and an Original CertificateCaveat: Anyone who claims this digest as his
transfers it to another estate,
own without proper authority shall be held
the owner of the land to which the segregated portion of Title was issued in her favor. Meanwhile, Babol who
was the defendant in CC 926 had sold the portion he liable under the law of Karma.
belonged retains the
ownership of it, provided that he removes the same was occupying to Rosete. 4 years after the finality of CC
within two years."
926, Javier instituted a Civil Case No. 2203-0 (CC 19. SPOUSES ELEGIO CAEZO and DOLIA
Article 463 provides that whenever the current of a 2203-0) for quieting of title and recovery of possession. CAEZO,
Petitioners,vs.SPOUSES
river divides itself into
Rosete moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. APOLINARIO and CONSORCIA L. BAUTISTA,
The CFI of Zambales dismissed the case.
Respondents
branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof
isolated, the owner of the
G.R. No. 170189 September 1, 2010
land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a
portion of land is separated from the estate by the
Issue: Whether res judicata is applicable in the case.
current.
17.
FACTS:
Tuason vs ca

Held: No. The following are the requisites of res Petitionersare the registered owner[s] of a parcel of
judicata: a) there is final judgment or order; b) the land with an area of One Hundred Eighty Six(186)
18. Javier vs. Veridiano
court have jurisdiction over the subject matter; c) square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
former judgment is a judgment on merits; and d) (TCT) No. 32911. Respondents are theregistered
Felicidad Javier vs. Regino Veridiano and Reino Rosete identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of owners of a parcel of land, containing an area of One
G.R. No. L-48050. October 10, 1994

Hundred Eighty One (181) squaremeters, covered by evidence, the spouses Caezo were also able to present ordering the defendant foundation to surrender and
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 31727. Both documentary and objectevidence which consisted ofreturn the portion of the 116 sq.m which belonged to
parcels of land are located atCoronado Heights, photographs, transfer certificates of title, and a the plaintiff, Latosa. The court also ordered respondent
Barangka Ibaba, Mandaluyong City and registered withrelocation survey plan. Giventhese reasons, the Court Roxas to demolish whatever structure constructed
the Registry of Deeds ofMandaluyong City. Said lots ruled in favor of petitioners. The Supreme Court thereon at his own expense. With regards to the thirdare located adjacent to each other. When petitioners reversed the decision of theCourt of Appeals and party complaint, the court ordered the third-party
started the constructionof a building on their lot, they affirmed that of the trial court.
defendant foundation reimburse the third-party
discovered that their lot was encroached upon by the
plaintiff Roxas the value of 92 sq.m which belonged to
structures built byrespondents without their consent.
the latter, plus legal interest to be reckoned from the
The three (3) surveys conducted confirmed the fact of
time it was paid to the third-party defendant. Roxas
encroachment.However, despite oral and written 20. Krissey Osorio Mercy Vda. De Roxas, appealed to the CA, which denied the appeal. The
demands, respondents failed and refused to remove the represented by Arlene C. Roxas-Cruz, in her decision being final, the RTC issued a Writ of
disputedstructures.Petitioners filed a complaint before capacity as substitute appellant-petitioner,Execution to implement the ruling ordering the thirdthe RTC for the issuance of a writ of demolition. For -versusOur Ladys Foundation, Inc.,
party respondent to reimburse Roxas for the value of
failure tofile an Answer with the extended period
the property. The trial court approved the Sheriffs Bill
granted, petitioners presented evidence ex-parte. The
which valued the property at 2,500 pesos per sq.m.
G.R. No. 182378 March 06, 2013
RTCissued the writ of demolition. The Court of Appeals
Opposing to the valuation of the property, the
dismissed the complaint since the last demand
defendant foundation filed a motion to quash the bill
wasmade on 27 March 2000, or more than a year
and a motion Inhibition of the RTC judge and
before the filing of the complaint, the spouses
contending that it should only pay Roxas at a rate of
FACTS:
Caezoshould have filed a suit for recovery of
40.00 pesos per sq.m at the same rate that Roxas paid
possession and not for the issuance of a writ of
when the latter purchased the property. The trial court
On 1 September 1988, Salue Dealca Latosa filed before
demolition. Hence,this petition.
approved an Amended Sheriffs Bill which reduced the
the Regional Trial Court a complaint for the recovery of
valuation to 1,800 per sq.m. the RTC denied both thr
ownership of a portion of her residential land located at
motions and cited fairness to justify the computations
ISSUE: Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals
Our Ladys Foundation Village Bibincahan, Sorsogon.
of respondents judgement obligation. Notices of
gravely erred in stating that the petitioners should
According to her, Atty. Henry Amado Roxas
garnishment were issued by the sheriff to Bishop
havefiled recovery of possession and not writ of
represented by herein petitioner, encroached on a
Robert Arcilla-Maullon, the foundations generaldemolition.
quarter of her property by arbitrarily extending hid
manager. The foundation, refusing to pay the said
concrete fence beyond the correct limits. In his answer,
amount per sq.m filed a Rule 65 Petition before the CA.
RULING:The Supreme Court ruled that while the case
Roxas imputed the blame to respondent Our Ladys
The CA, reversed the decision of the RTC ordering the
was inaccurately captioned as an action for a "Writof
Village Foundation Inc., the former then filed a Thirdrespondent foundation to reimburse the petitioner at
Demolition with Damages" it was in reality an action to
Party complaint against respondent and claimed that
the rate of 40.00 pesos per sq.m.
recover a parcel of land or an accion reivindicatoria
he only occupied the adjoining portion inorder to get
under Article 434 of the Civil Code.
the equivalent area of what he had lost when the
respondent foundation trimmed his property for the
Accion reivindicatoria seeks the recovery ofownership
subdivision road. The RTC admitted the Third-Party
ISSUES:
and includes the jus utendi and the jus fruendi brought
complaint and proceeded to trial based on merits. The
in the proper regional trial court. Accion reivindicatoria
RTC held based on evidence that Roxas occupied a
is an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a
1. The determination of the correct amount to be
total of 112 sq.m of Latosas lots, and that respondent
parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession.
reimbursed by the respondent foundation to Roxas.
foundation trimmed the formers property by 92 sq.m.
The petitioners were able to establish their ownership
The court rendered judgement on the first complaint
of the encroached property.Aside from testimonial

2. Whether or not Arcilla-Maullon should be personally improvement of the builder, planter or sower stands, answering the petitioner filed accion publiciana in
held liable for the obligation of the respondent is given to the owner.
court. Gos filed their Answer with Third-Party
foundation.
Complaint impleading as third party defendants
-If the option chooses is to sell the lot, the price must respondents Li Ching Yao, the AIA and Engineer
be fixed at the prevailing market value at the time of Quedding.
payment.
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner ordering
respondent Go to demolish their improvements and
pay damages to Petitioner but dismissing the thirdFACTS:
party complaint. CA affirmed the dismissal of the third
HELD:
Eden Ballatan, together with other petitioners, is living party-complaint as to AIA but reinstated the the
To settle the contention by the respondent foundation, in and registered owners of Lot No. 24. Respondent complaint against Yao and the Engineer. CA also
the court resorts to the provisions of the Civil Code, Winston Go is living in and registered owners of Lot affirmed the demolition and damages awarded to
specifically Article 450 referring to encroachments inNo. 25 and 26. And Li Ching Yao is living in and the petitioner and added that Yao should also pay
bad faith, the owner of the land encroached uponregistered owner of Lot. 27. The Lots are adjacent to respondent for his encroachment of respondent Gos
property. Jose Quedding was also ordered to pay
petitioner herein- has the option to require respondent each other.
attorneys fees for his negligence which caused all this
builder to pay the price of land. Although this provision
fuzz.
does not explicitly state the reckoning period for
valuation of property, the court by citing the case of When Ballatan constructed her house in her lot, she
Tuatis vs. Spuses Escol which illustrates that the noticed that the concrete fence and side pathway of the
present and current fair value of the land is to be adjoining house of respondent Winston Go encroached
reckoned at the time that the land owner elected the on the entire length of the eastern side of her property. ISSUE: What is the proper remedy in this situation
choice, not at the time that the property was She was informed by her contractor of this discrepancy, (everyone was in good faith)?
purchased. As to the second issue, the court holds that who then told respondent Go of the same. Respondent,
since respondent foundations manager was not a party however, claims that his house was built within the
to the case, the CA correctly ruled that Arcilla-Maullon parameters of his fathers lot; and that this lot was
cannot be held personally liable for the obligation of surveyed by engineer Jose Quedding, the authorized RULING:
surveyor of Araneta Institute of Agriculture (AIA).
the foundation. The respondent
Petitioner called the attention of AIA on the matter and Art 448 is the proper remedy (Lower Courts are wrong
in awarding the damages). It was established in the
foundation was ordered to pay Roxas 1,800 pesos per so the latter authorized another survey of the land by
Engineer Quedding. The latter then did the survey case that the parties had no knowledge of the
sq.m as determined by the decision of the RTC.
twice which led to the conclusion that Lots Nos 25, 26 encroachment until Ballatan noticed it there all of them
(owned by respondent Go) and 27 (owned by Li Ching were builders in Good faith. In that scenario they have
Yao) moved westward to the eastern boundary of Lot two options. 1st option is that the land owner will buy
24 (owned by petitioner Ballatan.) (it was later on the improvements and the 2nd option is to oblige the
21. BALLATAN V. CA
discovered by the courts that Go encroached 42 square builders to buy the land given that the value of the land
meters from the property of Ballatan and Yao is not considerably more than the buildings or tree;
encroached 37 square meters on Gos property, all of other wise the owner may remove the improvements
-Land Owner in Good faith, Builder in Good faith
which were in GOOD FAITH) Ballatan made written thereon.
scenario -The right to choose between appropriating
demands to the respondent to dismantle and move
the improvement or selling the land on which the
their improvements and since the latter wasnt

improvement or selling the land on which the do or which right to exercise. Likewise, Go was also
The builder, planter or sower, however, is not obliged improvement of the builder, planter or sower stands, is given time to do the regarding Yaos encroachment.
to purchase the land if its value is considerably more given to the owner. If the option chooses is to sell the Engineer Quedding was still asked to pay attorneys
than the building, planting or sowing. In such case, the lot, the price must be fixed at the prevailing market fees.
builder, planter or sower must pay rent to the owner of value at the time of payment.
the land. If the parties cannot come to terms over the
conditions of the lease, the court must fix the terms
thereof. The right to choose between appropriating the Petitioner was given by SC 30 days to decide on what to

Potrebbero piacerti anche