CASE NO. 93

GR L-61647 12 October 1984Republic v. Court of Appeals

FACTS:

Benjamin Tancinco, Azucena Tancinco Reyes, Maria Tancinco Imperial and Mario C. Tancinco are registered owners of a parcel of land situated at Barrio Ubihan, Meycauayan, Bulacan bordering on the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers.On 24 June 1973, the Tancincos filed an application for the registration of 3 lots adjacent to their fishpond property (Psu-131892: Lot 1, 33837 sq.m.; Lot 2, 5,453 sq.m.; Lot 3, 1985 sq.On 5 April 1974, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Amando C. Vicente, in representation of the Bureau of Lands filed a written opposition to the application for registration.On 6 March 1975, the Tancincos filed a partial withdrawal of the application for registration with respect to Lot 3 of Plan Psu-131892 in line with the recommendation of the Commissioner appointed by the Court.On 7 March 1975, Lot 3 was ordered withdrawn from the application and trial proceeded only with respect to Lots 1 and 2 covered by Plan Psu-131892.On 26 June 1976, the lower court rendered a decision granting the application on the finding that the lands in question are accretions to the Tancincos' fishponds covered by TCT 89709.On 30 July 1976, the Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals.On 19 August 1982, the appellate court rendered a decision affirming in toto the decision of the lower cost; without costs.ISSUE:Hence, the petition for certiorari to set aside the decision of the CA.

RULING:The Republic claimed that there was no accretion to speak of because what actualy happend was that the Tancincos simply transferred their dikes further down the river bed of Meycuayan River, and thus, if there was any accretion to speak of, it was man-made and artificial and not the result of the gradual and imperceptible sedimentation by the waters of the rivers.

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision appealed from, and ordered the private respondents to move back the dikes of their fishponds to their original location and return the disputed property to the river to which it belongs.

CASE NO. 94HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO, petitioner,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT & HEIRS OF SINFOROSO PASCUAL, respondents.FACTS:On October 3, 1946, Sinforoso Pascual, now deceased, filed an application for foreshore lease covering a tract of foreshore land in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan, having an area of approximately seventeen (17) hectares. This application was denied on January 15, 1953. So was his motion for reconsideration.Subsequently, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, also now deceased, Emiliano Navarro, filed a fishpond application with the Bureau of Fisheries covering twenty five (25) hectares of foreshore land also in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan.Initially, such application was denied by the Director of Fisheries on the ground that the property formed part of the public domain.Upon motion for reconsideration, the Director of Fisheries, on May 27, 1958, gave due course to his application but only to the extent of seven (7) hectares of the property as may be certified by the Bureau of Forestry as suitable for fishpond purposes.The Municipal Council of Balanga, Bataan, had opposed Emiliano Navarro's application.Aggrieved by the decision of the Director of Fisheries, it appealed to the Secretary of Natural Resources who, however, affirmed the grant.On the other hand, sometime in the early part of 1960, Sinforoso Pascual flied an application to register and confirm his title to a parcel of land, situated in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan, described in Plan Psu-175181 and said to have an area of 146,611 square meters.Pascual claimed that this land is an accretion to his property, situated in Barrio Puerto Rivas, Balanga, Bataan, and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 6830.On March 25, 1960, the Director of Lands, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, filed an opposition thereto stating that neither Pascual nor his predecessors-in-interest possessed sufficient title to the subject property, the same being a portion of the public domain and, therefore, it belongs to the Republic of the Philippines.

During the pendency of the land registration case, that is, on November 6, 1960, Sinforoso Pascual filed a complaint for ejectment against Emiliano Navarro, one Marcelo Lopez and their privies, alleged by Pascual to have unlawfully claimed and possessed, through stealth, force and strategy, a portion of the subject property covered by Plan Psu-175181.The defendants in the case were alleged to have built a provisional dike thereon: thus they have thereby deprived Pascual of the premises sought to be registered. This, notwithstanding repeated demands for defendants to vacate the property.The case was decided adversely against Pascual. Thus, Pascual appealed to the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Balanga, Bataan. Because of the similarity of the parties and the subject matter, the appealed case for ejectment was consolidated with the land registration case and was jointly tried by the court a quo.During the pendency of the trial of the consolidated cases, Emiliano Navarro died on November 1, 1961 and was substituted by his heirs, the herein petitioners.Subsequently, on August 26, 1962, Pascual died and was substituted by his heirs, the herein private respondents.On November 10, 1975, the court a quo rendered judgment finding the subject property to be foreshore land and, being a part of the public domain, it cannot be the subject of land registration proceedings.On December 15, 1980, we granted the Solicitor General, acting as counsel for the Director of Forestry, an extension of time within which to file in this court, a petition for review of the decision dated November 29, 1978 of the respondent appellate court and of the aforecited resolution dated November 21, 1980.ISSUE :May the land sought to be registered be deemed an accretion in the sense that it naturally accrues in favor of the riparian owner or should the land be considered as foreshore land?Before us is a petition for review of: (1) the decision 1 and (2) two subsequent resolutions 2 of the Intermediate Appellate Court 3 (now the Court of Appeals) in Land Registration Case No. N-84, 4 the application over which was filed by private respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Sinforoso Pascual, now deceased, before the Court of First Instance 5 (now the Regional Trial Court) of Balanga, Bataan.

RULING:The disputed property was brought forth by both the withdrawal of the waters of Manila Bay and the accretion formed on the exposed foreshore land by the action of the sea which brought soil and sand sediments in turn trapped by the palapat and bakawan trees planted thereon by petitioner Sulpicio Pascual in 1948Anchoring their claim of ownership on Article 457 of the Civil Code, petitioners vigorously argue that the disputed 14-hectare land is an accretion caused by the joint action of the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers which run their course on the eastern and western boundaries, respectively, of petitioners' own tract of land.Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under said Article 457, requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the accumulation of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and (3) that the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river.Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited, while alluvium is the soil deposited on the estate fronting the river bank ; the owner of such estate is called the riparian owner. Riparian owners are, strictly speaking, distinct from littoral owners, the latter being owners of lands bordering the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal waters.Petitioners' claim of ownership over the disputed property under the principle of accretion, is misplaced.WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED.Costs against petitioners.SO ORDERED.

CASE NO. 95G.R. No. L-30829 August 28, 1929GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. vs. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE, ET AL.

FACTS:During the months of September, October and November every year, the waters of Laguna de Bay cover a long strip of land along the eastern border of the two parcels of land in question, the width of which strip varies from 50 to 70 meters according to the evidence of the Colegio de San Jose and up to the eastern border of the pass claimed by the municipality of San Pedro Tunasan, according to some witnesses for the Insular Government; and, according to other witnesses for the Insular Government, the flooded strip includes the aforementioned pass itself, which is usually completely covered with water, so that the people can fish in said flooded strip.The claimant Colegio de San Jose contends, and its evidence tends to prove, that the above-named parcels of land are a part of the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan belonging to said claimant, which has been in possession thereof since time immemorial by means of its tenants or lessees and farmers.On the other hand, the Government of the Philippine Islands contends that the said two parcels of land belong to the public domain, and its evidence tends to prove that they have always been known as the shores of Laguna de Bay, and they are situated alongside the highway running parallel to said shore; that the water of the lake has receded a great distance on that side; that said parcels of land had been under water formerly; that at present, during the rainy season, the water of the lake reaches the highway, and that when the water recedes the people of the place occupy and cultivate said lands during the dry season.ISSUE:The only question to be decided in the present appeal is whether the two aforesaid parcels of land in controversy belong to the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan and are owned by the claimant Colegio de San Jose, or whether they belong to the public domain as a part of the bed of Laguna de Bay.RULING:Inasmuch as Laguna de Bay is a lake, we must resort to the legal provisions governing the ownership and use of lakes and their beds and shores, in order to determine the character and ownership of the parcels of land in question. It is beyond discussion that Laguna de Bay belongs to the public domain, being a natural lake existing upon public lands, and fed by public waters from rivers, brooks and springs.Now then, what is the bed of Laguna de Bay?

The evidence shows that during the dry season, that is, during the months of December, January, February, March, April, May, June, July and August, the water of the lake at its highest depth reaches no farther that the line forming the northeastern boundary of the two parcels of land in controversy, and that it is only during the wet season, that is, during the months of September, October, and November, that said water rises to the highway, completely covering said parcels of land. Therefore, the waters of Laguna de Bay have two different levels during the year:One during the dry season, which obtains during nine months, and the other during the wet season, which continues for three months. Which of these two heights marks the land limit of the waters of Laguna de Bay, that is, which of them forms its natural bed or basin? The law says, the highest ordinary depth. Now then, which of the two aforesaid depths of the waters of Laguna de Bay is the ordinary one? The word "ordinary" is defined in the Dictionary of the Spanish Academy as follows:ORDINARY. Not exceeding the average; common, natural, occurring always or most of the time; not going beyond what happens or takes place.The word extraordinary is defined in the same dictionary as follows:EXTRAORDINARY. Uncommon, transcending the general rule, order or measure; exceeding, surpassing, or going beyond that which is ordinary, commonly met with, current, settled, or admitted by the majority.According to the foregoing definitions of the words "ordinary" and "extraordinary," the highest depth of the waters of Laguna de Bay during the dry season is the ordinary one, and the highest depth they attain during the rainy season is the extraordinary one; inasmuch as the former is the one which is regular, common, natural, which occurs always or most of the time during the year, while the latter is uncommon, transcends the general rule, order of measure, and goes beyond that which is the ordinary depth.Summarizing, we find:(1) That the natural bed or basin of Laguna de Bay is the ground covered by its waters at their highest ordinary depth during the dry season, that is, during the months of December, January, February, March, April, May, June, July and August;(2) that the highest depth reached by said waters during the rainy season, or during the months of September, October and November, is extraordinary;(3) that the two parcels of land in litigation form an integral part of the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan belonging to the claimant Colegio de San Jose;(4) that said two parcels of land, being accidentally inundated by the waters of Laguna de Bay continue to be the property of the claimant Colegio de San Jose (art. 77, Law of Waters of August 3, 1866);

(5) that even supposing that the said two parcels of land have been formed by accession or deposits of sediment by the waters of said Laguna de Bay, they still belong to the said claimant Colegio de San Jose, as owner of the land of the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan, bordering on said Laguna de Bay (art. 84, Law of Waters of August 3, 18660;(6) that the provisions of the Law of Waters regulating the ownership and use of the waters of the sea are not applicable to the ownership and use of lakes, which are governed by special provisions.In the view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold, that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, without special pronouncements as to costs.So ordered.

CASE NO. 96G.R. No. L-3788. December 21, 1907Roxas v. TuasonFACTS:On 19 February 1906, attorneys Rosado, Sanz & Opisso, on behalf of Pedro P. Roxas, applied for the registration of the estate owned by Roxas (Hacienda de San Pedro Macati) in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act. Said hacienda was acquired by Roxas by inheritance under the will of his late father, Jose Bonifacio Roxas, y Ubaldo.The property consists of 4 parcels of land, irregular shape, designated on the accompanying plan under the letters "A" to "D", containing a total area of 1,761 hectares 51 ares and 5 centares, equivalent to 17,615,105 sq.m., and assessed at P415,221.34, of which P59,904 corresponded to the portion of said hacienda included within the limits of the city of Manila and P256,769 corresponded to that portion situated in the Province of Rizal.The building constructed of strong materials, called the "Casa-Quinta" or "Casa de Ingenieros," belonging also to Roxas, is erected within parcel "C," occupying, together with its appurtenances, an area of 8,430 sq.m., and was assessed at P98,557.34.The hacienda was not mortgaged nor that any person has any right to or any interest therein; and it is almost wholly occupied, under lease, by about 429 tenants whose names, residences, and postal addresses, as well as the residence of the owner of the property and of his attorney in fact, are stated in the application.On 24 April, Roxas requested the summoning of the persons therein named, and stated in addition that the total area of the hacienda is 17,613,595.91 sq.ms., as specified in the corrections made to the technical description.On 24 July 1906, Roxas amended his application and gave the postal address and names of several occupants of the property; and by other amendments to his original petition dated 30 August and 25 September 1906, rectifications are made in the boundaries of the hacienda, the last of which represents a decrease of 1,446.70 sq.ms., or 14 ares and 46.70 centares which must be deducted from the original description.The owners of the adjoining properties having been summoned and notified by means of subpoenas and notices published in the daily papers, one of them, Julia Tuason, appeared and by a document dated 10 September 1906, set forth her opposition to the registration and authentication of the title of Roxas, as regards the parcel marked "C," for the reason that two old monuments which had separated their respective properties had been pulled down and new ones erected without her consent, and in her opinion the latter included a considerable portion of the land owned by her.

The municipality of San Pedro Macati also filed opposition to the requested registration, alleging that the land occupied by the municipal building and the public school had been in the possession of the town from time immemorial, and that all the land occupied by roads, highways, lanes, and public landing places belonged to the public domain and should be excluded from registration in favor of Roxas.On 18 September 1906, the attorney for Alejandro Aguirre and Consolacion Aguirre also filed opposition to said application for registration alleging that the 2 parcels of land owned by them had been improperly included within the bounds of said hacienda in the parcel marked "C," the second said parcels, which is the only subject of the respective bill of exceptions and appeal interposed by them, consists of a building lot situated in Calle San Pedro, opposite the first parcel of land, which was the subject of another bill of exceptions and appeal by the Roxas; said second parcels measures 10 meters and 87 centimeters on its front and rear, and 9 meters and 20 centimeters along each of its sides, its boundaries being stated.On 17 October 1906, the court rendered decision, overruling the opposition made by Julia Tuason, by the municipality of San Pedro Macati, and by Alejandro and Consolacion Aguirre as to the second parcel, and ordered the registration of the Hacienda of San Pedro Macati in favor of Pedro Roxas excluding the parcel of land with a frontage of 23 Spanish yards and a depth of 24 Spanish yards occupied by the municipal building, which the government has the right to use without the payment of rent therefor, so long as the same is occupied by the said building or by another in substitution thereof and used for the public good and for official purposes. Julia Tuason, the municipality of San Pedro Macati, and Alejandro and Consolacion Aguirre, excepted to said judgment and moved for a new trial on the ground that the same was contrary to law and to the weight of the evidence; said motion was overruled, Tuason, Aguirre and the municipality of San Pedro Macati again excepting. The respective bills of exceptions having been presented, the same were forwarded in the ordinary manner to the Supreme Court.RULING:The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from as regards Julia Tuason and the municipality of San Pedro Macati, declared the appeal of Alejandro and Consolacion Aguirre to be abandoned, and ordered Tuason, the Aguirres and the municipality of San Pedro to pay their respective share of the costs.

CASE NO. 97G.R. No. 73465. September 7, 1989Cureg v. IACFACTS:On 5 November 1982, Domingo Apostol, Soledad Gerardo, Rosa Gerardo, Nieves Gerardo, Flordeliza Gerardo and Lilia Maquinad filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages with preliminary injunction against Leonida, Romeo, Pepito, Hernando, Manuel, Antonio and Elpidio Carniyan with the RTC Isabela (Civil Case Br. 111-373).A temporary restraining order was issued by the trial court on 12 November 1982. The complaint alleged that the Gerardos and Maquinad are the legal and/or the forced heirs of the late Domingo Gerardo, who died in February 1944, the latter being the only issue of the late Francisco Gerardo, who died before the outbreak of WWII; that since time immemorial and/or before 26 July 1894, the late Francisco Gerardo, together with his predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, open, peaceful and continuous possession, under a bona fide claim of ownership and adverse to all other claimants, of a parcel of land, situated in Casibarag-Cajel, Cabagan, Isabela, containing an area of 2.5 hectares [N: Cagayan River; E: Domingo Guingab (formerly Rosa Cureg); S: Antonio Carniyan; and W: Sabina Mola].Said land was declared for taxation purposes under TD 08-3023 in the name of Francisco Gerardo, which cancelled TD C-9669, in the name of Francisco; that upon the death of Francisco Gerardo, the ownership and possession of the land was succeeded by his only issue, Domingo Gerardo who, together with 3 legal or forced heirs, namely Soledad Gerardo, Primo Gerardo(+) and Salud Gerardo(+) have also been in actual, open, peaceful and continuous possession of the same.Primo Gerardo was survived by Rosa, Nieves and Flordeliza Gerardo; while Salud Gerardo was survived by Lilia Maquinad. In 1979, Soledad, Rosa, Nieves, and Flordeliza Gerardo along with Lilia Maquinad verbally sold the land to Domingo Apostol. On 10 September 1982, the verbal sale and conveyance was reduced into writing by the vendors who executed an "Extra-Judicial Partition with Voluntary Reconveyance." About the time of the execution of the Extra-Judicial Partition, the land already manifested signs of accretion of about 3 hectares on the north caused by the northward movement of the Cagayan River; that Domingo Apostol declared the land and its accretion for tax purposes under TD 08-13281 on 15 September 1982.Sometime about the last week of September and or the first week of October 1982, when the Gerardos, Maquinad and Apostol were about to cultivate their land together with its accretion, they were prevented and threatened by the Carniyans (Leonida Cureg and Romeo, Pepito, Hernando, Manuel, Antonio and Elpidio: surviving spouse and children of Antonio Carniyan) from continuing to do so.

The late Antonio Carniyan was the owner of a piece of land (acquired from his father-in-law Marcos Cureg on 5 October 1956 as evidenced by an Absolute Deed of Sale) situated in Casibarag-Cajel, Cabagan, Isabela which contained an area of 2,790 sq. m.(N: Domingo Gerardo; E: Domingo Guingab; S: Pelagio Camayo; and W: Marcos Cureg), and which was declared for taxation purposes under TD 13131, with an assessed value of P70.00. Carniyan revised on 28 November 1968 his TD 13131 dated 24 July 1961 to conform with the correct area and boundaries of his OCT P-19093 issued on 25 November 1968 pursuant to Free Patent 399431 dated 21 May 1968; that the area under the new TD 15663 was increased from 2,790 sq.ms. to 4,584 sq.ms. and the boundary on the north became Cagayan River, purposely eliminating completely the original boundary on the north which is Domingo Gerardo. The heirs of Antonio Carniyan (Cureg, et.al.) alleged in their answer that the land claimed by the Gerardos and Apostol is non-existent; that Antonio Carniyan was the owner of a piece of land bounded on the north by Cagayan River and not by the land of Francisco Gerardo; that the "subject land" is an accretion to their registered land and that they have been in possession and cultivation of the "accretion" for many years.The application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was denied on 28 July 1983 on the ground that the Carniyans (Cureg) were in actual possession of the land in litigation prior to September 1982. In a decision rendered on 6 July 1984, the trial court rendered judgment declaring Domingo Apostol the absolute owner of the parcel of land containing an area of 5.5000 hectares (N: Cagayan River; E: Domingo Guingab; S: Antonio Carniyan; and W: by Sabina Mola) and with an assessed value of P3,520; ordering the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Cureg, et.al.; ordering that the writ be made permanent; and ordering Cureg, et.al. to pay Apostol, et.al. a reasonable attorney's fee of P5,000.00, litigation expenses of P1,500.00 and costs.On 17 July 1984, Cureg appealed to the then IAC Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court on 15 October 1985 (CA-GR CV 03852). Cureg's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 8 January 1986. Hence, the petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rule of Court.

RULING:The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision appealed from, and rendered judgment dismissing Civil Case Br. III-373 for quieting of title and damages; with costs against Apostol, et.al.

CASE NO.99G.R. No. 108065. July 6, 1993.Baes v. CAFACTS:In 1962, the government dug a canal on a private parcel of land (Lot 2958, with area of 33,902 sq.m.) to streamline the Tripa de Gallina creek.This lot was later acquired by Felix Baes, who registered it in his name and then had it subdivided into 3 lots (Lot 2958-A, 28,889 sq.m, TCT 11041.; Lot 2958-B, 3,588 sq.m, TCT 11042.; and Lot 2958-C, 452 sq.m., TCT 11043).In exchange for Lot 2958-B, which was totally occupied by the canal, the government gave Baes a lot with exactly the same area as Lot 2958-B through a Deed of Exchange of Real Property dated 20 June 1970.The property, which was near but not contiguous to Lot 2958-C, was denominated as Lot 3271-A and later registered in the name of Felix Baes under TCT 24300.The soil displaced by the canal was used to fill up the old bed of the creek.Meanwhile, Baes had Lot 2958-C and a portion of Lot 2958-A designated as Lot 1, Blk. 4, resurveyed and subdivided.On 12 January 1968, he submitted a petition for the approval of his resurvey and subdivision plans, claiming that after the said lots were plotted by a competent surveyor, it was found that there were errors in respect of their bearings and distances.The resurvey-subdivision plan was approved by the CFI Pasay City in an order dated 15 January 1968.As a result, the old TCTs covering the said lots were canceled and new ones were issued (Blk. 4: Lot 1-A, 672 sq.m., TCT T-14404; Lot 1-B representing the increase in size after the resurvey, 826 sq.m., TCT T-14405; Lot 2958-C-1, 452 sq.m., TCT T-14406; and Lot 2958-C-2 representing the increase after resurvey, 2,770 sq.m., TCT T-14407). Lots 2958-C-1 and 2958-C-2 were later consolidated and this time further subdivided into 4 lots (Lot 1, 147 sq.m., TCT 29592.; Lot 2, 950 sq.m., TCT 29593; Lot 3, 257 sq.m., TCT 29594; and Lot 4, 1,868 sq.m., TCT 29595).In 1978, the Republic of the Philippines discovered that Lot 1-B (TCT 14405) on which the Baes had erected an apartment building, covered Lot 3611 of the Pasay Cadastre, which is a filled-up portion of the Tripa de Gallina creek. Moreover, Lot 2958-C (TCT 29592 to 29595), with an increased area of 2,770 sq.m. after resurvey and subdivision, had been unlawfully enlarged.

On 17 November 1982, the Republic filed a petition for cancellation of TCT 14405 and 29592 to 29595 with the trial court (Civil Case 0460-P).Baes did not object in his answer to the cancellation of TCT 29592, 29594 and 29595 and was not able to prove during the trial that the government utilized a portion of Lot 2 under TCT 29593. The trial court therefore decreed that the original Lot 2958-C (452 sq.m.) be reverted to its status before the resurvey-subdivision of Lot 2958-C.Baes appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in toto the ruling of the trial court, declaring TCTs 14405, 29592, 29593, 29594, 29595, and TCT 29593's derivative titles TCTs 124725, 124726, 124727 and 124729, ordering the Register of Deeds for Pasay City to cancel them and issue new ones in their stead in the name of the Baes after segregating from TCT 29593 452 sq. m., the actual area of Lot 2958-C (covered by cancelled TCT 11043) belonging to Felix Baes, and dismissing the counterclaim.Baes appealed to the Supreme Court by way of certiorari.RULING:The Supreme Court denied the petition, with costs against Baes.