NEW REGENT SOURCES, INC. V. TEOFILO VICTOR TANJUATCO, JR., and VICENTE CUEVAS QUISUMBING, J.: FACTS: 1.

Petitioner New Regent Sources, Inc. (NRSI) filed a Complaint[3] for Rescission/Declaration of Nullity of Contract, Reconveyance and Damages against respondent Tanjuatco and the Register of Deeds of Calamba. 2. NRSI alleged that in 1994, it authorized Vicente P. Cuevas III, its Chairman and President, to apply on its behalf, for the acquisition of two parcels of land by virtue of its right of accretion. 3. Cuevas purportedly applied for the lots in his name by paying P82,400.38 to the Bureau of Lands. 4. OnJanuary 2, 1995, Cuevas and his wife executed a Voting Trust Agreement[4] over their shares of stock in the corporation. Then, pending approval of the application with the Bureau of Lands, Cuevas assigned his right to Tanjuatco for the sum of P85,000.[5] 5. On March 12, 1996, the Director of Lands released an Order,[6] which approved the transfer of rights from Cuevas to Tanjuatco. Transfer Certificates of Title were then issued in the name of Tanjuatco. 6. According to Tanjuatco, it was Cuevas who was alleged to have defrauded the corporation. 7. In dismissing NRSIs complaint,[14] the RTC cited the Order of the Director of Lands and certain insufficiencies in the allegations in the complaint. The trial court further held that Tanjuatco is an innocent purchaser for value. 8. NRSI moved for reconsideration, but it was denied by the trial court. 9. Hence, NRSI filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, raising the following issues: ISSUES: (1) Whether NRSI has a valid claim over the lands subjects of this case through accretion. (2) Whether RTC erred in declaring Tanjuatco a buyer in good faith. HELD: (1) NO. NRSI anchors its claim over the lands subjects of this case on the right of accretion. It submitted in evidence, titles[30] to four parcels of land, which allegedly adjoin the lots in the name of Tanjuatco. But it must be stressed that accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457[31] of the Civil Code requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the deposition 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 accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.[32] Thus, it is not enough to be a riparian owner in order to enjoy the benefits of accretion. One who claims the right of accretion must show by preponderant evidence that he has met all the conditions provided by law. Petitioner has notably failed in this regard as it did not offer any evidence to prove that it has satisfied the foregoing requisites. (2) NO. Petitioner disagrees with the trial courts finding that Tanjuatco was a buyer in good faith. It contends that the March 12, 1996 Order of the Director of Lands which declared that the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-369406 and T-369407 were free from claims and conflicts when Cuevas assigned his rights thereon to Tanjuatco. But petitioners claim is untenable because respondents did not formally offer said order in evidence. From all the foregoing, it is plain and apparent that NRSI failed to substantiate its claim of entitlement to ownership of the lands in Tanjuatcos name. The trial court, therefore, correctly dismissed petitioners complaint for reconveyance.