USERO V.

CA (2005)
J. CORONA
Facts: Petitioners Lutgarda Samela and Nimfa Usero are the owners of a parcel of land while private
respondent spouses Polinar are the registered owners of a parcel of land behind the lots of
the petitioners.
Situated between the lots of the parties is a low-level strip of land, with a stagnant body of
water filled with floating water lilies; abutting and perpendicular to the lot of petitioner
Samela, the lot of the Polinars and the low-level strip of land is the perimeter wall of Pilar
Village Subdivision.
Apparently, every time a storm or heavy rains occur, the water in said strip of land rises and
the strong current passing through it causes considerable damage to the house of respondent
Polinars. Frustrated by their predicament, private respondent spouses, erected a concrete
wall on the bank of the low-level strip of land about three meters from their house and rip-
rapped the soil on that portion of the strip of land.
P demanded R to stop the construction
On the grounds that the strip of the land is part of a creek
P presented to the a copy of TCT, plan of consolidation, subdivision survey, tax declaration in her name,
court the following affidavits of Usero and Gamela whose property was located beside the perimeter
evidence wall
R counter argued this own TCT, certifications to the existence of the creek and the pictures of the subject
proposition by strip of land filled with water lilies
presenting
The MTC / LA ordered the defendants to vacate and remove at their expense the improvements
made on the subject lot
The RTC / NLRC reversed the decision and ordered the dismissal of the complaint because the
plaintiff cannot claim lawful ownership of the creek because it forms part of the
public dominion
Whereas the CA did not consider the petitioners’ petitions
Issue: WON the disputed strip of land is the private property of petitioners or part of the
creek which form part of the public dominion
The SC Held that: The subject strip of land is a creek as evidenced by the certifications that a creek
exists in the disputed land and the photographs showing the abundance of water
lilies which could only mean that there is a permanent stream of water or creek
there
The FF. Laws are the Article 420 of the Civil Code
basis. The phrase “other similar character” includes a creek which is a recess or an arm of a river. It
is a property belonging to the public dominion which is not susceptible to private ownership.
therefore Being public water, a creek cannot be registered under the Torrens system in the
name of any individual.
wherefore Wherefore, the case is hereby denied.