Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Right Of Accession
Concept
General Principles
Kinds of Accession
• Accession Discreta
Concept:
Art. 440 – The ownership of property gives the right by
• Accession Continua accession to everything which is produced thereby or
attached and incorporated thereto, either naturally or
• Over Immovables artificially
Two Kinds
a. Accession Discreta (fruits)
b. Accession Continua
General Principles
Applicable to both acces sion continua and disc reta
Accessory foll ows the principal
No one shall be unjustly enriched at the expense of
another
Obligation of the owner to pay for the production, annuities and similar inc ome (accrue from day to day)
gathering and preserv ati on (Art. 443) 4. Expenses for productio n, gathering and
Applicable to Discreta al one: to the owner belongs the preservation: to be pai d by receiver of frui ts
fruits
the decision of the Supreme Court in the mandamus case (G. R. administratrix would then have a right and reason to refuse the
No. L -1379) promulgated on December 19, 1947, the payment of said allowances from her said personal funds or
administratrix had in her possession the sum of P351,116.91 from the fruits of the estate, which as a usufructu ary, belong to
which has already been adjudicated to and belong s, her during her lifetime. But, until that point is reached, we see
although pro indiviso, to the hei rs of the deceased E. M. no valid reason for ordering the sal e of the ½ of the estate
Bachrach and that furthermore, the monthly allowances being belonging to the heirs over thei r objecti on.
paid to the hei rs or due them should be paid from this sum and
not from the personal funds of the administratrix Mary 2. Bachrach v. Talisay Silay : The appellant bank bases
McDonald Bachrach . Furthermore, the very order of the lower its preferential ri ght upon the contenti on that the bonus
court of October 2, 1940, authorizing the administratrix to pay in question is civil fruits of the l ands which the owners
to the heirs the monthly allowances already mentioned, had mortgaged for the benefit of the central givi ng the
stipulated in its fourth paragraph that said allowances should bonus, and that, as civil fruits of said land, said bonus
be taken from the properties to be turned over to the heirs of the was assigned by Mariano Lacson Ledesma on M arch 7,
deceased E. M. Bachrac h and shall be deducted from the share 1930, by virtue of the document Exhi bit 9 of said
of said heirs upon the death of the widow.. intervening instituti on, which admitted in i ts brief that "if
the bonus in ques tion is not civil fruits or rent which
In the opinion of this Court, the cash in the possession of the became subject to the mortgage in favor of the
administratrix corresponding to the ½ of the estate adjudicated Philippine National Bank when Mar iano Lacson
to the heirs is sufficient for the monthly allowances being paid Ledesma's pers onal obli gation fell due, the assignment
to the heirs and that there is no necessity for the sale of the ½ of March 7, 1930 (Exhibit 9, P.N.B.), is null and voi d, not
of the estate corresponding to them. The main objection to the because it is fraudulent, for there was no i ntent of fraud
heirs to the sale of ½ of the es tate adjudicated to them, which in executing the deed, but that the cause or
½ besides the cash al ready mentioned, consist mostly of consideration of the assi gnment was erroneous , for it
shares of stock, is that s aid shares i f sold now may not was based upon the proposition that the bonus was civil
command a goo d price and that furthermore said heirs prefer to fruits of the land mortgaged to the Philippine National
keep said shares intact as long as there is no real necessity for Bank." (P. 31.)
their sale. Of course, once said cash in the hands of the
administratrix, corresponding to the heirs is exhausted The fundamental question, then, submitted to our consideration
because of the payment of the allowances made to the heirs, is whether or not the bonus in quest i on is civil fruits.
some other arrangements might be necessary. The
This is how the bonus c ame to be granted: On December 22, As the bonus in question is not rent of a building or of land, the
1923, the Talisay -Silay Milling Co., Inc., was indebted to the only meani ng of "civil fruits" left to be examined is that of
Philippine National Bank . To secure the payment of its debt, it "income."
succeeded in inducing its planters, among whom was Mariano
Lacson Ledesma, to mortgage their land to the creditor bank. Assuming that in broad j uridical sense of the word "income" it
And in order to compens ate those planters for the risk they might be said that the bonus in ques tion is "i ncome" under
were running wi th their property under the mortgage, the article 355 of the Civil Code, i t is obvious to inquire whether it
aforesaid central , by a resolution passed on that same date, is derived from the land mortgaged by Mari ano Lacson
i.e., December 22, 1923, undertook to credit the owners of the Ledesma to the appell ant bank for the benefi t of the central; for
plantation thus mortgaged every year with a sum equal to two it is not obtained from that land but from somethi ng else, i t is
per centum of the debt secured according to yearly balance, the not civil fruits of that land, and the bank 's contention is
payment of the bonus being made at once, or in part from time untenable.
to time, as so on as the c entral became free of its obligations to It is to be noted that the said bonus bears no immediate, but
the aforesaid bank, and of those c ontracted by virtue of the only a remote accidental relation to the land menti oned, having
contract of supervision, and had funds which might be so used, been granted as compensation for the risk of havi ng subjected
or as soon as it obtained from said bank authority to make such
one's land to a lien in favor of the bank , for the benefit of the
payment. (Exhibi ts 5, 6; P.N.B.) entity g ranting said bonus. If this bonus be income or civil frui ts
Article 355 of the Civil Code considers three things as civil of anything, it is income arising from said risk, or, if one
fruits: First, the rents of buildings; second, the proceeds from chooses, from Mariano Lacson Ledesma's generosity in facing
leases of lands; and, thi rd, the income from perpetual or life the danger for the protection of the central, but certainly it is
annuities, or other similar sources of revenue. I t may be noted not civil fruits or income from the mortgaged property, which,
that according to the context of the law, the phrase "u otras as far as this case is concerned, has nothing to do with it.
analogas" refers only to rent or income, for the Hence, the amount of the bonus, according to the resolution of
adjectives "otras" and "analogas" agree with the the central granting i t, is not based upon the value, importance
noun "rentas," as do als o the other or any other circumstanc e of the mortgaged property, but upon
adjectives "perpetuas" and "vitalicias." That is why we say that the total value of the debt thereby secured, according to the
by "civil fruits" the Civil Code understands one of three and only annual balance, which is something quite dis tinct from and
three things, to wit: the rent of a building, the rent of land, and independent of the property referred to.
certain kinds of inc ome.
Prepared by Team Bessy 4
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
3) LO IS IN BAD FAITH, OM IS IN GOOD FAITH: LO acquires Art. 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay
the BPS after paying indemnity for damages subject to OM’s the expenses made by a third person in thei r production,
right to remove. OM may remove the materials in any event and gathering, and preservation. (356)
be indemnifi ed for damages (Art. 447)
Art. . 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally
4) LO IS IN BA D FAITH, OM IS IN BAD FAITH: Similar to LO or through a nother, plantings, constructions or works with the
and OM in GF (Art. 453) materials of another, shall pay thei r value; and, if he acted in
bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages.
The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them
Notes: only in case he can do so without injury to the work constructed,
or without the plantings, constructions or works being
a. LO is in GF if he believes that the materials belong to destroyed. However, if the landowner acted i n bad faith, the
him and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. owner of the materials may remove them in any event, with a
Howev er, negligence may subject him to liability for right to be indemnified f or damages . (360a)
damages
Art. 448. The owner of the land on whic h anythi ng has been
b. LO is in BF if he knows of his lack of title and absence
built, sown or planted in good fai th, shall have the right to
of permission of the owner of the materials
appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after
c. OM is in GF if he is ignorant of the acts of the LO payment of the indemnity provided for in Articl es 546 a nd 548,
or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the
d. OM is in BF if he all ows LO to use his materials without land, and the one who s owed, the proper rent. However, the
protest builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value
is considerably more than that of the buildi ng or trees. In such
case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does
3rd party BPS and OM not choose to appropriate the buil ding or trees after proper
*Article sou rces: indemnity. The parties s hall agree upon the terms of the lease
and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms
*Article sources: thereof. (361a)
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land
Prepared by Team Bessy 6
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to planter or sower proceeded in good fai th, the provisions of
indemnity. (362) article 447 shall apply. (n)
Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been Art. 455. If the materials , plants or seeds belong to a third
built, planted or s own in bad faith may demand the demolition person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land
of the work, or that the pl anting or sowing be removed, in order shall answer subsidi arily for their val ue and only in the event
to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the that the one who made use of them has no property with which
person who built, pl anted or sowed; or he may compel the to pay.
builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the
proper rent.(363a) This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the
right granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, p l ants
Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the or seeds has been paid by the buil der, planter or sower, the
landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or latter may demand from the landowner the value of the
sower. (n) materials and labor. (365a)
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or
reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of interest in the real property which is t he subjec t matter of the
the land. (n) action. He need not be i n possession of said property.
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every
person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the
also on the part of the owner of s uch land, the rights of one and thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good
faith. Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in
good faith with the same right of retention, the person who has
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding
landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and the amount of the ex penses or of paying the i ncrease in value
without opposi tion on hi s part. (354a) which the thing may hav e acquired by reason thereof. (453a)
Art. 454. When the land owner acted in bad faith and the builder, Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be
Prepared by Team Bessy 7
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
refunded to the possessor in good faith; but he may remove the 4) LO IS IN BAD FAITH, BPS IN BAD FAITH : Simi lar to LO and
ornaments with whic h he has embellished the principal thing if BPS in GF (Art. 453)
it suffers no inj ury th ereby, and if his successor in the
possession does not prefer to refund the amount NOTES:
expended. (454)
1) GF of BPS lies in his beli ef that the land belongs to him,
and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his ti tl e; BF
*BASED ON THE GRAPH S:
lies in his knowledge of his lack of title and absence of
> GRAPH #1: ((LEGEND: LO=LAND OWNER, permission of the LO
OM=OWNER OF MATERIALS, GF=GOOD FAITH, 2) GF of LO lies in his ignorance of the acts of the BPS or
BF=BAD FAITH, BPS=BUILDS, PLANTS AND SOWS) the belief the BPS has the right to build, etc.
3) Title to the accessory does not pass until there i s
payment for indemni ty
1) LO IS IN GOOD FAITH, BPS IN GOOD FAITH: LO has the 4) Failure of the builder to pay for the land destroy s the
right of retention (Bernardo v. Bataclan)
option to: a) Sell the land (unl ess value of land >BP rent) or
5) BPS may record right to i ndemnity as a lien and in case
b) Acquire the BPS after payment of indemnity ( orig cost or of successive alienations of the land, recov ery may be
BPS or inc. in v alue) (Art. 546, 548). If LO chooses b, BPS may against present owner who acquires in BF
retain until indemnity is paid 6) Does not apply
a. Usufruc t
2) LO IS IN GOOD FAITH, BPS IN BAD FAITH: LO: 1. Option to b. Lease (Gemiano v. CA, Nicolas)
(a) get improv ements w/o paying indemnity + damages or (b) c. Owner who builds, sells land but not
sell land to BP/rent to S + damages or (c) order demolition of improvements
work + damages & 2. Pay necessary expenses for preservation d. Co-owners
7) BPS with permission of LO both in GF actually, both in
(Arts. 449-451). BPS (1) Loses BPS w/o right to indemnity (2)
BF (Bernardo v . Bataclan, de Guzman v. Fuente and
Recover necessary expenses for preservation of the land & (3) Felices )
pay damages to the LO Art (449 -452) Cases:
a. Bernardo v. Bataclan: The Civil Code c onfirms
3) LO IS IN BAD FAITH, BPS IN GOOD FAITH: LO must certain time-honored pri nciples of the law of
indemnify BPS + Damages and can’t compel B to buy land . BPS property. One of thes e i s the pri nciple of
may remove imp in any event and/or be indemnified for accession where by the owner of property
damages acquires not only that which it produces but that
which is united to it either naturally or
Prepared by Team Bessy 8
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
artificially. (Art. 353.) Whatever is built, planted vencedor." (4 Manresa, 4th ed, p., 304.) We find,
or sown on the land of another, and the however, that the defendant has l ost his right of
improvements or repairs made thereon, belong retention. In obedience to the decision of this court in
to the owner of the l and (art. 358). Where, G.R. No. 37319, the pl ai ntiff expressed his desire to
however, the planter, builder, or sower has require the defendant to pay for the v alue of the land.
acted in good fai th, a conflict of rights arises The said defendant coul d have become owner of both
between the owners and it becomes necessary land and improvements and continued in posses sion
to protect the owner of the improvements thereof. But he said he c ould not pay and the land was
without causing i njustice to the ow ner of the sold at public auc tion to Toribio Teodoro. The law, as we
land. In view of the impracticability of creating have already said, requi res no more than that the owner
what Manresa calls a state of "forced of the land shoul d choos e between indemnifying the
coowners hip" (vol . 3, 4th ed., p. 213), the law owner of the improvements or requiring the l atter to pay
has provided a just and equitable solution by for the land. When he failed to pay for the l and, the
giving the owner of the land the option to acquire defendant herein lost his right of retention.
the improvem ents after payment of the proper The sale at public auction having been asked by the
indemnity or to oblige the builder or planter to plaintiff himself (p. 22, bill of exceptions) and the
pay for the land and the sower to pay the proper purchase price of P8,000 received by him from Toribio
rent (art. 361). It is the owner of the land who is Teodoro, we find no reason to justi fy a rapture of the
allowed to exercise the option because his right situation thus created between them, the
is older and becaus e, by the principle of defendant-appell ant not being enti tled, after all, to
accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the recover from the plaintiff the s um of
accessory thing (3 Manresa, 4th ed., p. 213). In P2,212. lawphi1.net
the case before us, the plaintiff, as owner of the
land, chose to require the defendant, as owner
of the improvements, to pay for the land. b. Ignacio v. Hilario: The Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan between the herein respondents
The defendant s tates that he is a possessor in Elias Hil ario and his wife Dionisia Dres as
good faith and that the amount of P2,212 to which he is plaintiffs, and the herein petitioners Damian,
entitled has not yet been paid to him. Therefore, he Francisco and Luis, surnamed Ignacio, as
says, he has a right to retain the land in accordance with defendants, concerning the ownership of a
the provisions of articl e 453 of the C ivil Code. We do not parcel of land, partly ric e -land and partly
doubt the validity of the premises stated. " Considera la residential . After the trial of the case, the lower
ley tan saarada y legitima la deuda, que, hasta que sea court, presided over by Hon. Alfonso Felix,
pagada, no consiente que la cosa se restituya all rendered judgment holdi ng plaintiffs as the l egal
Prepared by Team Bessy 9
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
owners of the whole prope rty but conceding to substantially the judgment sought to be executed
defendants the ownershi p of the houses and and is, furthermore, offensive to articles 361 and
granaries built by them on the residential portion 453 of the Civil Code.
with the ri ghts of a possessor in good faith, in
accordance with article 361 of the Civil Code.
c. Sarmiento v. Agana: The Municipal Court found
The plaintiffs prayed for an order of execu tion that private respondents had built the
alleging that since they chose neither to pay RESIDENTIAL HO USE i n good faith, and,
defendants for the buildings nor to sell to them disregardi ng the testimony of ERNESTO, that it
the residential l ot, said defendants should be had a val ue of P20,000.00. It then ordered
ordered to remove the structure at their own ERNESTO and wife to v acate the LAND after
expense and to restore plaintiffs in the SARMIENTO has paid them the mentioned sum
possession of sai d lot. of P20,000.00.
The Ejectment suit was elevated to the Court of
The owner of the buildi ng erected in good faith on First Ins tance of Pas ay where, after the
a land owned by another, is entitled to retain the submission of memoranda, said Cour t rendered
possession of the land until he is paid the value a modifying Decision under Article 448 of the
of his buildi ng, under article 453. The owner of Civil Code. SARMIENTO was required, within 60
the land, upon the other hand, has the option, days, to exercise the option to reimburse
under article 361, either to pay for the building or ERNESTO and wife the s um of 40,000.00 as the
to sell his l and to the owner of the building. But value of the RESIDENTIAL HO USE, or the
he cannot, as respondents here did, refuse both option to allow them to pur chase the LAND for
to pay for the building and to sell the land and P25,000.00. SARMIENTO did not exercise any
compel the owner of the building to remove it of the two options within the indicated period,
from the land where it is erected. He is entitled to and ERNESTO was then allowed to deposit the
such remotion only when, after having chosen to sum of P25,000.00 with the Court as the
sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the purchase price for the LAND. This is the hub of
same. But this is not the case before us. the controvers y. SARMIENTO then instituted the
We hold, therefore, that the order of Judge instant certiorari proceedings.
Natividad compelling defendant s-petitioners to We agree that ERNESTO and wife were builders
remove their buildings from the land belonging to in good faith in view of the peculiar
plaintiffs -respondents only because the latter circumstances under whi ch they had
chose neither to pay for such buildings not to sell constructed the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. As far
the land, is null and void, for it amends as they knew, the LAND was owne d by
Prepared by Team Bessy 10
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
ERNESTO's mother -in-law who, having stated later amended to include DEPRA as a party
they could build on the property, could plain. plaintiff.
reasonably be expected to later on give them the After trial , the Municipal Court found that
LAND. DUMLAO was a buil der i n good faith, and
SC: The provision for the exercise by petitioner applying Article 448 of the Civil Code said that
SARMIENTO of either the option to indemnify their was lease. No forc ed lease.
private respondents in the amount of Reversed by the SC: apply the provisions.
P40,000.00, or the option to allow private Choose whether to pay for the improv ements or
respondents to purchase the LAND at to sell the 34 sqm land.
P25,000.00, i n our opinion, was a correct
decision. e. Technogas Phils v CA: Technogas bought land
and building. Building encroaches area of
another property. TC hel d that Technogas was B
d. Depra v. Dumlao: Plaintiff-appellee, Francisco in GF, CA reversed on the basis that as owner of
Depra, is the owner of a parcel of land registered the property, technogas must know the bounds
under T ransfer Certi ficate of Title No. T3087, of its property, thus in BF.
known as Lot No. 685, situated in the SC: GF builder. AS buyer, technogas inherited
municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo, with an area of its predecessor’s GF. LO must exercise option
approximately 8,870 square meters. Agustin to either sell the land or buy the building.
Dumlao, defendant -appellant, owns an The private respondent's insistence on the
adjoining lot, designated as Lot No. 683, with a n removal of the encroachi ng structures as the
approximate area of 231 sq. ms. proper remedy, whic h respondent Court
Sometime in 1972, when DUMLAO constructed sustained in its assailed Decisions, is thus
his house on his lot, the kitchen thereof had legally flawed. This is not one of the remedi es
encroached on an area of thirty four (34) square bestowed upon him by law. It would be av ailable
meters of DEPRA's property, After the only if and when he c hooses to compel the
encroachment was discovered in a relocation petitioner to buy the land at a reasonable pric e
survey of DEPRA's lot made on November but the latter fai ls to pay such price. 3 3 This has
2,1972, his mother, Beatriz Depra after writing a not taken place. Hence, his options are limi ted
demand letter asking DUMLAO to move back to: (1) appropri ating the encroaching porti on of
from his encroachment, filed an action for petitioner's building after payment of proper
Unlawful Detainer on February 6,1973 against indemnity, or (2) obliging the latter to buy the lot
DUMLAO in the Municipal Court of of Duman gas, occupied by the structure. He cannot exercise a
docketed as Civil Case No 1, Said complaint was remedy of his own liking.
Prepared by Team Bessy 11
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
in possession of the leased premises and until cannot bank on that promise and profess any
they surrender possession to the landlord. This claim nor colour of title over the lot in question.
estoppel ap plies even though the lessor had no (3) ART. 1678 applies. The rights of the priv ate
title at the time the rel ation of lessor and lessee respondents as lessees are governed by Article
was created, and may be asserted not only by 1678 of the Civil Code which allows
the origi nal lessor, but also by those who reimbursement to the extent of one-half of
succeed to his title. (2) NO. The alleged the value of the useful improvements . It must
promise of the petitioners to sell the lot be stressed, however, that the right to
occupied by the private respondents' house indemnity under Article 1678 of the Civil
was not substantiated by convincing Code arises only if the lessor opts to
evidence. Neither the deed of sale over the appropriate the improvements . Since the
house nor the contrac t of lease contained an petitioners refused to ex ercise that option, the
option in favour of the respondent spouses to private respondents cannot compel them to
purchase the said lot. And even if th e petitioners reimburse the one -hal f v alue of the house and
indeed promised to sell, it would not make the improvements. Nei ther c an they retain the
private respondents possessors or builders in premises until reimbursement is made. The
good faith s o as to be covered by the provisions private respondents' sol e right then is to remov e
of Articl e 448 of the Civil Code. The latter cannot the improvements witho ut causing any more
raise the mere expectancy of ownership of the impairment upon the property leased than is
aforementioned lot because the alleged promise necessary.
to sell was not fulfill ed nor its existence even
proven. The fi rst thing that the private
h. Pleasantville Dev’t Corp v. CA, 253 SCRA 10:
respondents should have done was to reduce
ISSUES:(1) Whether or not Keewas a builder in
the alleged promise into writing, because under
good faith? SC HELD:Yes, Kee was a builder in
Article 1403 of the Civil Code , an agreement for
good faith. Good faith consists in the beli ef
the sale of real property or an interest therein is
of the builder that the land he is building on
unenforceable, unless some note or
is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw
memorandum thereof be produced. Not having
in his title. And as good faith is presumed,
taken any steps i n order that the alleged promise
petitioner has the burden of proving bad faith
to sell may be enforc ed, the private respondents
Prepared by Team Bessy 13
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
on the part of Kee. At the time he built 69561matche d Lot 8. Thus, he went to the
improvements on Lot 8, Ke e believed that subdivision developer's agent and applied and
said lot was w hat he bought from petitioner. paid for the relocati on of the lot, as well as for
He was not aware that the lot delivered to him the production of a lot pl an by CTTEI's geodetic
was not Lot 8. Thus, Kee's good faith. engineer. Upon Kee's receipt of the map, his
Petitioner failed to prove otherwise. We agree wife went to the subdivision site a ccompanied by
with the foll owing observation of the Court of CTTEI's employee, Octaviano, who
Appeals:"The roots of the controversy can be authoritatively decl ared that the land s he was
traced di rectly to the errors committed by pointing to was indeed Lot 8. Having full faith
CTTEI, when it pointed the wrong property to and confidence in the reputation of CTTEI,
Wilson Kee and his wife. It is highly and because of the company's positive
improbable that a purchaser of a lot would identification of the property, K ee saw no
knowingly and willingly build his residence reason to suspect that there had been a
on a lot ow ne d by another, deliberately misdelivery. The s teps Kee had taken to protect
exposing himself and his family to the risk of his interes ts were reasonable. There was no
being ejected from the land and losing all need for him to have acted ex -abundantia
improvements thereon, not to mention the cautela, such as being present during the
social humiliation that would follow . "Under geodetic engineer's relocation survey or hi ring
the circ umstances, Kee had acted in the manner an independent geodetic engineer to
of a prudent man in ascertaining the identity of countercheck for errors, for the final delivery of
his property. Lot 8 is covered by Transfer subdivision lots to their owners is part of the
Certi ficate of Titl e No. T -69561, while Lot 9 is regular course of everyday businessof CTTEI.
identified in Transfer Certificate of Title No. Because of CTTEI's blunder, what Kee had
T-106367. Hence, under the Torrens system of hoped to forestall did in fact transpire. Kee's
land regis tration, Kee is pr esumed to have efforts all went to naught." To demonstrate
knowledge of the metes and bounds of the Kee's bad faith, petitioner points to Kee's
property with which he is dealing. . . ."But as Kee violation of paragraphs22 and 26 of the
is a layman not versed in the technical Contract of Sale on Installment.We
description of his property, hehad to find a way disagree.Such violations have no bearing
to ascertain that what was described in TCT No. whatsoever on whether Kee was abuilder in
Prepared by Team Bessy 14
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
good faith, that is, on his state of mind at the same is so desi red by hi m/her." The subjec t
time he built the improvements onLot 9. matter of this provision of the contrac t is the
These alleged violati ons may give rise to change of the l ocation, c ontour and condition of
petitioner's cause of action against Kee under the lot due to erosi on. It merely provides that the
the said contract (contractual breach), but may vendee, havi ng examined the property pri or to
not be bases to negate the presumption that Kee the execution of the contract, agrees to shoulder
was a builder in good faith. Petitioner also the expenses resul ting from such change. We do
points out that, as found by the trial court, not agree w ith the interpretation of petitioner
the Contract of Sale on Installment covering that Kee contracted aw ay his righ t to recover
Lot 8 between it and Kee was rescinded long damages resulting from petitioner's
before the present action was institu ted. This negligence. Such waiver would be contrary to
has no relevance on the liability of petitioner, public policy and cannot be allowed. "Rights
as such fact does not negate the negligence may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to
of its agent in pointing out the wrong lot to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good
Kee. Such ci rcumstance is relevant only as it customs, or prejudi ci al to a thi rd person with a
gives Jardinico a cause of action for unlawful right recognized by law."
detainer again st Kee. Petitioner next contends
that Kee cannot "claim that another lot was
erroneously pointed out to him" because the
i. Felices v. Iriole, GR No. 115814 May 26, 1995:
latter agreed to the following provision in the ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent may
Contract of Sale on Installment , to wit: "13. recover or be reimbursed the value of his
The Vendee hereby declares that prior to the improvements on the land in questi on, on the
execution of his contract he/she has personally theory that as both he a nd petitioner knew that
examined or inspected the property made their sale was illegal and void, they were both i n
subject-matter hereof, as to its location, bad faith? SC HELD: NO . Consequently, Art.
contours, as well as the natural condition of the 453 of the Civil Code applies in that "the rights
lots and from the date hereof whatever of one and the other shall be the same as though
consequential change therein ma de due to both had acted i n good faith". The rule of Art.
erosion, the said Vendee shall bear the 453 of the Civil Code invoked by defendant
expenses of the necessary fillings, when the cannot be applied to the instant case for the
Prepared by Team Bessy 15
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
reason that the lower court found, and the latter to execute a deed of reconveyance
respondent admits, that the improvements in in his favor. The case is actually for mutual
question were made on the premises only restitution, incident to the nullity ab initio of
after petitioner had tried to recov er the land the conveyance.
in question from respondent, and even
"He who buil ds, plants or sows i n bad faith on
during the pendency of this action in the
court below. After respondent had refused to the land of another, loses what is buil t, planted,
restore the land to the petitioner, to the extent or sown wi thout right to indemnity" (Art. 449,
that the latte r even had to resort to the present New Civil Code).
action to recover h is property, petitioner could
no longer be regarded as having impliedly
j. Spouses Nuguid v. CA, GR No. 105360, May
assented or conformed to the improvements
25, 1993 and GR No. 151815, January 23,
thereafter made by respondent on the premises .
Upon the other hand, respondent, recognizing 2005: MAIN ISSUE: Whether or not the
as he does petitioner's right to get back his petitioners are entitl ed to the lot’s
property, continued to act in bad faith when improvement? MAIN SC HELD: NO, the
he made improvements on the land in petitioners should not b enefit from the lot’s
question after he had already been asked improvement, until they reimbursed the
extra -judicially and judicially, to surrender improver in full, based on the current market
and return its possession to petitioner ; and value of the property. As we earlier held, since
as a penalty for such bad faith, he must petitioners opted to appropriate the
forfeit his improvements without any right to improvement for themsel ves as early as June
reimbursement therefor . At the outset, it must 1993, when they appli ed for a writ of execution
be made clear that as the sale in question was despite knowledge that the auction sale did not
executed by the parties within the five -year include the apartment building . Despite the
prohibitive period under section 118 of the
Court's recognition of Pecson's right of
Public Land Law , the same is abso lutely null
ownership over the apartment building, the
and void and ineffective from its inception .
petitioners still insisted on dispossessing
Consequently, petitioner never lost his title or
ownership over the land in question , and Pecson by filing for a Writ of Possession to
there was no need either for him to cover both the lot and the building . Clearly,
repurchase the same from respondent, or for this resulted in a violation of respondent's
Prepared by Team Bessy 16
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
right of retention . Worse, petitioners took also gives him right of retention until full
advantage of the situation to benefit from the reimbursement is made. While the law aims to
highly valued, income -yielding, four -unit concentrate in one pers on the owners hip of the
apartment building by collecting rentals land and the improvements thereon in view of
thereon, before they paid for the cost of the the impracticabili ty of creating a state of forced
apartment building . It was only four years later co-ownership, it guards against unjus t
that they finally paid its full value to the enrichment i nsofar as the good -faith builde r's
respondent. It is not disputed that the improvements are conc erned. The ri ght of
construction of the four -door two-storey retention is considered as one of the measures
apartment, subject of this dispute, was devised by the law for the protection of builders
undertaken at the time when Pecson was still in good fai th. Its object i s to guarantee full and
the owner of the lot . When the Nuguids prompt reimbursement as it permi ts the actual
became the uncontested owner of the lot on possessor to rema in in possession while he has
June 23, 1993, by virtue of entry of judgment not been reimbursed (by the person who
of the Court's decision, dated May 25, 1993, in defeated him in the case for possession of the
G.R. No. 105360, the apartment building was property) for those necessary expenses and
already in existence and occupied by useful improv ements made by him on the thing
tenants. In its decisi on dated May 26, 1995 in possessed. Accordingly, a builder in good fai th
G.R. No. 115814, the Court declared the rights cannot be compelled to pay rentals during the
and obligations of the litigants in accordance period of retention nor be disturbed in his
with Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code . possession by ordering him to vacate. In
These provisions of the Code are directly addition, as in this case, the owner of the land is
applicable to the instant case. Under Article prohibited from offsetting or compensating the
448, the landowner is given the option, either to necessary and useful ex penses wi th the frui ts
appropri ate the improvement as his own upon received by the builder -possessor in good faith.
payment of the proper amount of indemnity or t o Otherwise, the security provided by law woul d
sell the land to the possessor in good faith . be impaired. This is so because the right to the
Relatedly , Article 546 provides that a builder in expenses and the ri ght to the frui ts both pertai n
good fai th is entitled to full reimbursement for all to the possessor, making compensation
the necessary and us eful expenses incurred; it juridically impossibl e; and one cannot be used
Prepared by Team Bessy 17
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
to reduce the other. Petitioners' interpretation of reaped al l the benefi ts from the improvement
our holdi ng in G.R. No. 115814 has neither introduced by the respondent during said period,
factual nor legal basis. The decision of May 26, without paying any amount to the latter as
1995, shoul d be construed in connection with reimbursement for his c onstruction costs and
the legal principles which f orm the basis of the expenses. They s hould account and pay for such
decision, guided by the precept that judgments benefits. We need not belabor now the appellate
are to have a reasonable intendment to do court's recognition of herein respondent's
justice and avoid wrong. The text of the decision entitlement to r entals from the date of the
in G.R. No. 115814 expressly exempted Pecson determination of the c urrent market value until
from liabil ity to pay rentals, for we found that th e its full payment. Respondent is clearly enti tled
Court of Appeals erred not only in upholding the to payment by virtue of hi s right of retention over
trial court's determination of the indemnity, but the said improvement.
also in ordering him to account for the rentals of
the apartment building from June 23, 1993 to
September 23, 1993, the period from entry of
judgment until Pecson's dispossession. As
pointed out by Pecson, the dispositive portion of
our decision in G.R. No. 115814 need not
specifically include the income derived from the > GRAPH 2: ((LEGEND: LO=LAND OWNER,
improvement in order to entitle him, as a builder OM=OWNER OF MATERIALS, GF=GOOD FAITH,
BF=BAD FAITH, BPS=BUILDS, PLANTS AND SOWS)
in good faith, to such income. The rig ht of
retention, which entitles the builder in good faith
to the possession as well as the income derived 1. LO in GF (Arts. 448, 546, 455)
therefrom, is already provided for under Article
546 of the Civil Code. Given the circumstances a) Get improvements and pay indemni ty to BPS; subsidiary
of the instant c ase where the buil der in good liability to OM
faith has been clearly denied his right of
b) SELL to BP or rent to S (unless value of land>imp rent to BP)
retention for almost half a decade, we find that
the increased award of rentals by the RTC was c) Get improvements and pay indemni ty to BPS;
reasonable and equitable. The petitioners had
Prepared by Team Bessy 18
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
d) SELL to BP or rent to S (unless value of land>imp rent to BP) • OM in GF collects from BPS and subs from the LO, if OM
in BF, loses mats unle ss others are in BF
e) No subs. Liab for mats
• BF party pays damages to the GF party/s
2. BPS in GF (546, 449)
• BF of one neutraliz es that of the other
a) Right to retention for necessary and useful expenses
• First Line: (1) Ri ghts of the land owner against the BPS
b) Pay value of mats to OM (546, 45 5) from Art. 448 and s ubsidiary liability from Art. 455; (2)
Obligation of the BPS to pay OM impli ed from 455, “only
c) Right to retention for necessary and useful expenses
if the one who used cannot pay”
d) Keep BPS w/o indemnity to OM & collect damages from OM
• Second Line: (1) The LO has no subsi diary liabili ty
3. OM in GF because Art. 455 only i mposes the subsi diary li ability
on those OM who did not act in BF; (2) Consequence to
a) Collect value of mats from BPS or subs from LO the OM comes from the genera l rule that BF = loss of
things
b) Remove only i f wi thout injury (455, 447)
4. OM in BF
>GRAPH 3: ((LEGEND: LO=LAND OWNER, OM=OWNER OF
MATERIALS, GF=GOOD FAITH, BF=BAD FAITH,
a) Lose materia ls w/o ri ght to i ndemnity (449)
BPS=BUILDS, PLANTS AND SOWS)
b) Pay damages
1) LO in GF: LO 1. Option to (a) get improvements w/o paying
Notes: indemnity + damages or (b) sell land to BP/rent to S + damages
or (c) order demolition of work + damages & 2. Pay necessary
• Check – necessary, useful and expenses for mere expenses for preservation (Arts. 449 -452)
luxury 2) BPS in BF: Recover necessary expenses for the
preservation of land (Art. 452);
• Rights of LO and BPS must first be decided before that Loses improvements wi thout right to i ndemnity from LO unless
LO sells the land
of the OM
3) OM in BF: Recover v alue from BPS as if both in GF; If BPS
• Rights of OM is only agai nst the BPS and in the event that the Notes:
BPS acquires what is BPS, the relation bet ween BPS and OM LO BF, BPS GF, OM GF
is similar to rights of OM vs. LO in the first slide. • Art. 454 relationship between LO BF and BPS GF is
• Art. 453 is i n consonance with the principle of in pari delicto same as 447.
• Art. 447 speaks of relati onship between OM and LO.
This article gives the BPS to remove imp in any event,
>GRAPH 4: ((LEGEND: LO=LAND OWNER, and entitl es him to damages.
OM=OWNER OF MATERIALS, GF=GOOD FAITH, • Since OM is still in GF, then, LO is still subsidiary liable
BF=BAD FAITH, BPS=BUILDS, PLANTS AND SOWS)
Graph 5:
1) LO in BF (Arts. 453, 448, 546, 548, 455)
a. Acquire imp after payi ng indemni ty to BPS unless BPS chooses 1) LO in GF (Art. 449, 450, 451)
to remove
b. Pay BPS damages a. Options (a) get property (b) sell to BPS or (c) demolish
c. Subsidiarily liabl e to OM (Art. 454, 447, 455)
d. Acquire imp after payi ng indemni ty to BPS (subs liable to OM) b. Pay necessary ex penses to BPS
or
e. SELL to BP or rent to S (unl ess value of land>imp rent to BP) c. Subsidiary Liable to O M
2 ) BPS in GF 2) LO in BF
a. May remove improv ements in any
b. May be indemnified for damages i n any event (Art. 454, 447) a. Get improvements and pay indemnity + damages to BPS (Art.
454, 477) unless BPS removes
3) BPS in BF
• Elements ( Republic v . CA) + water mus t be fres h water +
a. Recover necessary ex penses ( Art. 452, 443) original identity of the deposit is lost
4) BPS in GF • Rivers include creeks, and lakes but not esteros and
canals
a. Indemni ty for damages
5) OM in GF 1) Republic v. CA: ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the two lots are
an accretion? (2) Whether or not the the private respondents?
a. Collect value of mats from BPS can validly register Lots 1 & 2 in their names ? SC HELD: (1) NO,
the lands are not an accretion, but really an encroachment of a
b. Remove in any event if BPS acquires imp.(Art. 447) portion of the Meycauay an river by reclamation. In the instant
case, there is no evidence w hats oever to prove that the
6) OM in BF addition to the said property was made gradually through the
effects of the current of the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers .
a. No indemnity and los es materials (Art. 449) Article 457 of the New Civil Code provides : "To the owners of
lands adjoining the bank s of rivers belong th e ac cretion which
Note: LO no longer has subsidiary liability in the event that they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the
he compels BPS to buy the land. waters." The above -quoted article requires the c oncurrence of
three requisites before an accretion covered by this particular
provision is said to have taken place. They are (1 ) that the
Natural Accession over immovables deposit be gradual and i mperceptible; (2) that it be made
> Alluvium through the effects of the current of the water; and (3) that the
land where accretion tak es place is adj acent to the banks of
Art. 457: To the ow ners of lands adjoining the rivers. The requirement that the deposi t should be due to th e
banks of rivers belong the accretion which they effect of the current of the river is indispensable. This excludes
gradually receive from the effects of the current of from Art. 457 of the New Civil Code all deposi ts caused by
the waters. (366) human intervention. All uvion must be the exclusi ve work of
nature. Also, there is evidence that the alleged alluvial
Prepared by Team Bessy 21
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
deposits were artifici al and man -made and not the exclusive Manila, 10 Phil. 567). Hence, the riparian owner does not
result of the current of the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers. The acquire the additions to his land caused by speci al works
alleged alluvial deposi ts came into being not because of the expressly intended or designed to bring about ac cretion. When
sole effect of the current of the rivers but as a result of the the private respondents tran sferred their dikes towards the
transfer of the di ke towards the river and encroaching upon it. river bed, the dikes were meant for reclamation purposes and
The land sought to be registered is not even dry land cast not to protect their property from the destructive force of the
imperceptibly and gradually by the river's current on the waters of the river.We agree with the submission of the
fishpond adj oining i t. It i s under two meters of water. Solicitor General that the testimony of the private respondents'
We agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that it is lone witness to the effec t that as early as 1939 there al ready
preposterous to believe that almost four (4) hectares of land existed such alleged all uvial deposits, deserves no merit. It
came into being because of the effec ts of the Meycauayan and should be noted that the lots in question were not included i n
Bocaue rivers. The lone witness of the private respondents who the survey of their adjac ent property c onducte d on May 10,
happens to be their ov erseer and whose hu sband was first 1940 and in the Cadastral Survey of the entire Municipality of
cousin of their father noticed the four hectare accretion to the Meycauayan conduc ted between the years 1958 to 1960. The
twelve hectare fishpond only in 1939. The respondents claim alleged accretion was declared for tax ation purposes only in
that at this point in time, accretion had already taken place. If 1972 or 33 years after it had supposedly permanently formed.
so, their witness was inc ompetent to testify to a gradual and The only valid conclusion therefore is that the sai d areas could
imperceptible increase to their land in the years before 1939. not have been there in 1939. They existed only after the private
However, the witness testified that in that year, she observed respondents transferred their dikes towards the bed of the
an increase in the area of the original fishpond which is now the Meycauayan river in 1951. (2) NO, the adjudication of the
land in ques tion. If she was telling the truth, the accretion was lands in question as priv ate property in the names of the private
sudden. However, the private respondents' own evidence respondents is null and void. The lower court cannot validly
shows that the water in the fishpond is two meters deep on the order the registration of Lots 1 & 2 in the names of the private
side of the pilapil facing the fishpond and only one meter deep respondents. These lots were porti ons of the bed of the
on the side of the pilapil facing the river.The reason behi nd the Meycauayan river and are therefore classified as property of
law giving the ripari an owner the right to any land or alluvion the public domain under Article 420 paragraph 1 and Article
deposited by a river is to compensate him for the danger of loss 502, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code of the Philippi nes. They are
that he suffers because of the l ocation of his land. If estates not open to registration under the Land Registration Act
bordering on rivers are exposed to floods and other evil s
produced by the des tructive force of the waters and if by virtue
of lawful provisions, said estates are subject to encumbrances 2) GRANDE vs CA: Issue: Whether the acc retion becomes
and various kinds of eas ements, it is proper that the risk or automatically registered land just because the lot which
danger which may prejudice the owners thereof should be receives it is covered by a Torrens ti tle thereby making the
compensated by the right of accretion. (Cortes v. City of alluvial property impresc riptible? Held: No. An accretion does
Prepared by Team Bessy 22
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
Art 458: The owners of estates adjoining ponds or Applies only to uprooted trees. If tree is carri ed away
lagoons do not acqui re the land left dry by the natural with land, then Art. 459 applies
decrease of the waters , or lose that inundated by them Recovery of expenses for preservation
in extraordinary floods . (367)
Prepared by Team Bessy 23
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
their onward course cover the entire depressed portion. Faustina Taccad indicates that the eastern bed already
Though the eas tern bed substantially dries up for the most part existed even before the sale to respondent Manalo . The
of the year (from January to August), we cannot ignore the words "old bed" enclosed in parentheses — perhaps written to
periodical swelling of the waters (from September to make legitimate the cl aim of private owners hip over the
December) causing the eastern bed to be covered with submerged portion — is an implied admission of the
flowing river waters. depressed portion is a river bed rests existence of the river bed . In the Declaration of Real Property
upon evidence of record. Firstly , respo ndent Manalo admitted made by respondent Manalo, the depressed portion assumed
in open court that the entire area he bought from Taguba was the name Rio Muerte de Cagayan. Indeed, the steep dike -like
included in Lot 307. If the 1.80 hectares purchased from slopes on either side of the eastern bed could have been
Taguba was included i n Lot 307, then the Cagayan River formed only after a prolonged period of time .
referred to as the wes tern boundary in the Deed of Sale
transferring the land from Gregorio Taguba to respondent
Manalo as well as the Deed of Sale signed by Faustina Taccad, Issue No. 2: WoN respondent Manalo is the rightful ow ner
must refer to the dried up bed (during the dry months) or the of the eastern branch/bed of the river? No. [MAIN ISSUE]
eastern branch of the ri ver (duri ng the rainy months). In the PUBLIC DOMINION respondent Manalo did not acquire
Sketch Plan attached to the records of the case, Lot 307 is
private owners hip of the bed of the eastern branch of the
separated from the western branch of the Cagayan River by a river even if it was included in the deeds of absolute sale
large tract of land which i ncludes not only Lot 821 but also what
executed by Taguba and Faustina Taccad in his favor .
this Court characterizes as the eas tern branch of the Cagayan
These vendors could not have validly sold land that
River. Secondly, the pictu res identified by respondent
constituted PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMINION .
Manalo during his direct examination depict the depressed
portion as a river bed . A huge vol ume of water passes through Article 420 of the Civil Code states:
the eastern bed regularl y during the rainy season. In addition,
petitioner Gannaban testified that one had to go down "The following things are property of public dominion:
(cliff) from the surveyed portion of the land of respondent
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals,
Manalo to the depressed portion.
**rivers, torrents**, ports and bridges constructed by the
The records do not show when the Cagayan River began to State, **banks**, shores, roads teads, and ot hers of similar
carve its eastern channel on the surface of the earth. However, character;
the Declaration of Real Property standing in the name of
(2) Those which belong to the State, without bei ng for public
Prepared by Team Bessy 25
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
use, and are intended for some public service or for the the effects of the current of the waters.
development of the national weal th." (Emphasis supplied).
[ STRESSED THE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF RIVER BEDS ] Re ACCRETION (L ot 821), no evidence to prove that Lot 821
is an increment/additi onal to Lot 307 and the bed of the eastern
The claim of ownershi p of respondent Manalo over the branch of the river.
submerged portion is bereft of basis even if it w ere alleged and
proved that the Cagayan River forst began to encroach on his Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457 of
property after the purchase from Taguba and Faustina Taccad. the Civil Code requires the concurrence of three (3) requisites :
(a) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and
Article 462 of the Civil Code would then apply divesting, by imperceptible ; (b) that it be the result of the action of the
operation of law, respondent Manalo of private ownership over waters of the river (or sea); and (c ) that the land where
the new river bed. The intrusion of the eastern branch of the accretion takes place is ADJACENT to the banks of rivers
Cagayan River into his landholding obviously prejudiced (or the sea coast) .
respondent Manalo but this is a common occurrence since
estates bordering on rivers are exposed to floods and other The Court notes that the parcels of land bought by respondent
evils produced b y the destructive force of the waters . That Manalo border on the eas tern branch of the Cagay an River. Any
loss is compens ated by, inter alia, the right of accretion accretion formed by thi s eastern branch which respondent
acknowledged by Article 457 of the Civil Code. It so happened Manalo may claim must be deposited on or attached to Lot
that instead of increasing the size of Lot 307, the eastern 307. As it is, the claimed accretion (Lot 821) lies on the bank
branch of the Cagayan River had carved a channel on it . of the river ********NO T ADJACENT to Lot 307 but DIRECTLY
OPPOSITE Lot 307 across the river. *******
Article 462. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural
causes, opens a new bed through a private estate, this BED it is important to note that Lot 821 has an area of 11.91
SHALL BECOME OF PUBLIC DOMINION. hectares. Lot 821 is the northern portion of th e strip of land
having a total area of 22.72 hectares . We find it difficult to
Article 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of suppose that such a sizable area as Lot 821 resulted from
rivers belong the accreti on which they gradually receive from slow accretion to another lot of almost equal size . The total
Prepared by Team Bessy 26
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
landholding purchased by respondent Manalo is 10.45 hecta res OR INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY which is the subject
(8.65 hectares from Faustina Taccad and 1.80 hectares from matter of the action . The evidence of record on this point is
Gregorio Taguba), *****i n fact even smaller than Lot 821 which less than satisfactory and the Court feels compel led to refrain
he claims by way of acc retion. ***** (mas Malaki pa ‘yung from determining the ownership and possession of Lot 821,
Lot 821 11+ heckaysasanabiliniyang lot na 10.45 hec ) adjudging neither petitioners nor respondent Manalo as
owner(s) thereof .
there are steep ve rtical dike-like slopes separating the
depressed portion or river bed and Lot 821 and Lot 307 . This => WHEREFORE, the Decision and Resolution of the CA are
topography of the land, among other things, hereby SET ASIDE.
precludes/excludes a reasonable conclusion that Lot 821 is an
increment to the depres sed porti on by reason of th e slow and Respondent Manalo is hereby declared the owner of Lot 307.
constant action of the waters of ei ther the western or the The regularly submerged portion or the eastern bed of the
eastern branches of the Cagayan River. Cagayan River is hereby DECLARED to be ***property of
Issue No. 4: WoN respondent Manalo is the rightful owner public dominion.***
of Lot 821? The ownership of Lot 821 shall be determined in an
Re ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP of Lot 821, If respondent Manalo appropriate action that may be instituted by the interested
had proved prior poss es sion, it was limited physically to Lot parties.
307 and the depressed portion or the eastern river bed . The
testimony of DomingaMalana who was a tenant for Faustina
Taccad did not i ndicate that she was also cultivating Lot 821. In B. Arts. 462 and 463 :
fact, the complaints for forcibl e entry lodged before the MTC Art. 462. Whenever a riv er, changing its course by natural
pertained only to Lot 307 and the depressed portion or river bed causes, opens a new bed through a private estate, this bed
and ***not to Lot 821. shall become of public dominion. (372a)
tax declarations presented by petitioners conflict with those of Art. 463. Whenever the c urrent of a river divides i tself into
respondent Manalo. branches, leaving a piec e of land or part thereof isolated,
the owner of the land retains his ownership. He als o retains
Under Article 477 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff i n an action it if a portion of l and is s eparated from the estate by the
current. (374)
for quieting of title must at least have EQUITABLE TITLE TO