Property Cases 12-13 Digest

8/10/2019 Property Cases 12-13 Digest

1/6


2/6

BINALAY VS. MANALO

A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is not the alluvial process contemplated in Art. 457. The

accumulation of the soil deposits must be slow and hardly imperceptible in order for the riparian owner to

acquire ownership thereof. Also, the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the

rivers (or the sea coast).

FACTS

Manalo acquired 2 lots which were originally owned by Judge Taccad from 2 different people (the latters

daughter and from an earlier purchaser). These lots were later consolidated into Lot 307, a total of 10.45

hectares. The lot was beside the Cagayan River, which, due to flooding, would place a portion of the land

underwater during the rainy season (September to December). On sunny days, however, the land would

be dried up for the entire dry season (January to August). When a survey of the land was conducted on a

rainy month, a portion of the land that Manalo bought was then underwater and was thus left unsurveyed

and excluded from Lot 307.

The big picture is this: Cagayan River running from south to north, forks at a certain point to form two

braches (western and eastern) and then unites at the other end, further north, to form a narrower strip of

land. The eastern branch of the river cuts through Lot 307, and is flooded during the rainy season. The

unsurveyed portion, on the other hand, is the bed of the eastern branch. Note that the fork exists only

during the rainy season while the island/elongated strip of land formed in the middle of the forks

becomes dry and perfect for cultivation when the Cagayan river is at its ordinary depth. The strip of land

in the middle of the fork totaled 22.7 hectares and was labeled Lot 821-822. Lot 821 is directly opposite

Lot 307 and is separated by the eastern branch of the rivers fork.

Manalo claims that Lot 821 belongs to him by way of accretion to the submerged portion of the land to

which it is adjacent. Petitioners (Binalay, et al) who possess the Lot 821, on the other hand, insist thatthey own it. They occupy the other edges of the lot along the river bank (i.e. the fertile portions on which

they plant tobacco and other agricultural products) and also cultivate the western strip during the summer.

Manalo filed 2 cases for forcible entry which were both dismissed. Later on, he filed a complaint for

quieting of title, possession, and damages against petitioner. The trial court and the CA ruled in favor of

Manalo, saying that Lot 821 and Lot 307 cannot be considered separate and distinct from each other.

They reasoned that when the land dries up for the most part of the year, the two are connected. [Note:

The CA applied the ruling in Govt of the Phil Islands vs. Colegio de San J ose, which was actually

inappropriate because the subject matter in this case was a lake so that the definition of a bed was

different.]

ISSUE:

Whether or not Manalo owns Lot 821 by way of accretion

RULING: No.


3/6

The disputed property is not an accretion. It is the action of the heavy rains that cause the highest

ordinary level of waters of the Cagayan River during the rainy season. The depressed portion is a river

bed and is thus considered property of public domain.

The SC observed the following:

a) The pictures identified by Manalo during his direct examination depict the depressed portion as a riverbed. The dried up portion had dike-like slopes (around 8m) on both sides connecting it to Lot 307 and Lot

821 that are vertical and very prominent.

b) The eastern bed already existed even before Manalo bought the land. It was called Rio Muerte de

Cagayan.

c) Manalo could not have acquire ownership of the land because article 420 of the civil code states that

rivers are property of public dominion. The word river includes the running waters, the bed, and the

banks. [The seller never actually owned that part of the land since it was public property]

d) The submerged area (22.72 ha) is twice the area of the land he actually bought. It is diff icult to

suppose that such a sizable area could have been brought about by accretion.

More importantly, the requisites of accretion in article 457 were not satisfied. These are: 1) that the

deposition of the soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; 2) that it be the result of the action of the

waters of the river (or sea); and 3) the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of

the rivers (or the sea coast). The accretion shouldve been attached to Lot 307 for Manalo to acquire its

ownership. BUT, the claimed accretion lies on the bank of the river; not adjacent to Lot 307 but directly

opposite itacross the river. Aside from that, the dike-like slopes which were very steep may only be

formed by a sudden and forceful action like flooding. The steep slopes could not have been formed by the

river in a slow and gradual manner.


4/6

REYNANTE v. CA

FACTS:

More than 50 years ago, Reynante was taken as tenant by the late Don Cosme Carlos over a fishpond in

Meycauayan, Bulacan. Reynante subsequently built a nipa hut where he and his family lived and took

care of the nipa palms which they planted on lots 1 and 2, which was located between the fishpond and

Liputan River. Reynantes family sold the nipa palms, and appropriated the fruits ashis own, without

interference or complaint from Don Carlos.

Upon Don Carlos death, his heirs convinced Reynante to sign an affidavit, relinquishing his rights as a

caretaker of the fishpond. Reynante, however, continued to live in the nipa hut he had built, and he still

took care of the nipa palms, which he continued to sell.

This lead the heirs to file a complaint for forcible entry with preliminary injunction against Reynante in theMTC. The MTC found for Reynante, but the heirs appealed to the RTC, where the decision was reversed.

The CA merely affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not accretion automatically becomes registered land just because the adjoining lot is

registered in the Torrens System?

HELD:

While it is true that alluvial deposits shall belong to the owner of the lot adjoining such accretion, it does

not automatically bestow an imprescriptibility. If the owners of said land have not registered this with the

proper entity, said land will be subject to acquisition by prescription, which was what occurred in this

case.

Since the affidavits prove that Reynante has been in possession of these lands for more than 50 years,

the SC rightly held that the land belongs to him.


5/6

VDA. DE AVILES v. CA

An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not be brought for the purpose of settl ing a boundary

dispute.

FACTS:

Eduardo Aviles, the predecessor of the petitioners is the bother of defendant Camilo. They inherited their

lands from their parents and have agreed to subdivide the same amongst themselves. The area alloted

(sic) to Eduardo Aviles is 16,111 square meters more or less, to Anastacio Aviles is 16,214 square meters

more or less, while the area alloted to defendant Camilo Aviles is 14,470 square meters more or less.

Defendants land composed of the riceland portion of his land is 13,290 square meters, the fishpond

portion is 500 square meters and the residential portion is 680 square meters, or a total of 14,470 square

meters.

The Petitioners claim that they are the owners of the fish pond which they claim is within their area.

Defendant Camilo Aviles asserted a color of title over the northern portion of the property with an area of

approximately 1,200 square meters by constructing a bamboo fence (thereon) and moving the earthen

dikes, thereby molesting and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over said portion.

Petitioners say that the fences were created to unduly encroach to their property but the defendant said

that he merely reconstructed the same.

Petitioners brought an action to quiet title but were denied thus this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners filed the right action

RULING:

No, Petitioners filed the wrong action. This is obviously a boundary dispute and as such the action must

fail.

Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any

instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is, in truth

and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action

may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon a title to real property or any

interest therein.


6/6

Petitioners fail to point out any any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that could been

a cloud to their title. In fact, both plaintiffs and defendant admitted the existence of the agreement of

partition dated June 8, 1957 and in accordance therewith, a fixed area was allotted to them and that the

only controversy is whether these lands were properly measured.

A special civil action for quieting of title is not the proper remedy for settling a boundary dispute, and that

petitioners should have instituted an ejectment suit instead. An action for forcible entry, whenever

warranted by the period prescribed in Rule 70, or for recovery of possession de facto, also within the

prescribed period, may be availed of by the petitioners, in which proceeding the boundary dispute may be

fully threshed out.

Documents

Property Cases 12-13 Digest