DIONISIA P. BAGAIPO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LEONOR LOZANO, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.

: This petition assails the decision dated June 30, 1994 of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal by the Regional Trial Court of a!ao City, "ranch #, in Ci!il Case $o% &&&'#9, of petitioner(s complaint for reco!ery of possession )ith prayer for preliminary mandatory in*unction and damages% The undisputed facts of the case are as follo)s+ ,etitioner ionisia ,% "agaipo is the registered o)ner of -ot $o% 41&, a 14.,900 s/uare meter agricultural land situated in 0a'a, a!ao City under Transfer Certificate of Title $o% T'1&1&1 particularly described as follo)s+ 2"ounded on the $3%, by -ots $os% 419 and 41.4 on the 53 by the a!ao Ri!er4 on the 53%, 6sic7 by -ots $os% 1098 and 10914 and on the $9%, by -ots $os% 413 and 41#2:1; Respondent -eonor -o<ano is the o)ner of a registered parcel of land located across and opposite the southeast portion of petitioner(s lot facing the a!ao Ri!er% -o<ano ac/uired and occupied her property in 19.8 )hen his )ife inherited the land from her father )ho died that year% =n 0ay 8., 19#9, "agaipo filed a complaint :8; for Reco!ery of ,ossession )ith 0andatory 9rit of ,reliminary >n*unction and amages against -o<ano for+ 617 the surrender of possession by -o<ano of a certain portion of land measuring 89,1.8 s/uare meters )hich is supposedly included in the area belonging to "agaipo under TCT $o% T'1&1&14 and 687 the reco!ery of a land area measuring 31,901 s/uare meters )hich "agaipo allegedly lost )hen the a!ao Ri!er tra!ersed her property% "agaipo contended that as a result of a change in course of the said ri!er, her property became di!ided into three lots, namely+ -ots 41&'A, 41&'" and 41&'C% >n January 19##, "agaipo commissioned a resur!ey of -ot 41& and presented before the trial court a sur!ey plan :3; prepared by ?eodetic 3ngineer ?ersacio A% 0agno% The sur!ey plan allegedly sho)ed that+ a7 the area presently occupied by "agaipo, identified as -ot 41&'A, no) had an area of only 19,#43 s/uare meters4 b7 -ot 41&'", )ith an area measuring 31,901 s/uare meters, )hich cut across "agaipo(s land )as ta@en up by the ne) course of the a!ao Ri!er4 and c7 an area of 89,1.8 s/uare meters designated as -ot 41&'C )as illegally occupied by respondent -o<ano% The combined area of the lots described by 3ngineer 0agno in the sur!ey plan tallied )ith the technical description of "agaipo(s land under TCT $o% T'1&1&1% 0agno concluded that the land presently located across the ri!er and parallel to "agaipo(s property still belonged to the latter and not to -o<ano,

)ho planted some 3&0 fruit'bearing trees on -ot 41&'C and the old abandoned ri!er bed% "agaipo also presented ?odofredo Corias, a former barangay captain and long'time resident of 0a'a to pro!e her claim that the a!ao Ri!er had indeed changed its course% Corias testified that the occurrence )as caused by a big flood in 19.# and a bamboo gro!e )hich used to indicate the position of the ri!er )as )ashed a)ay% The ri!er )hich flo)ed pre!iously in front of a chapel located 1& meters a)ay from the ri!erban@ )ithin "agaipo(s property no) flo)ed behind it% Corias )as also present )hen 0agno conducted the relocation sur!ey in 19##% Aor his part, -o<ano insisted that the land claimed by "agaipo is actually an accretion to their titled property% Be asserted that the a!ao Ri!er did not change its course and that the reduction in "agaipo(s domain )as caused by gradual erosion due to the current of the a!ao Ri!er% -o<ano added that it is also because of the ri!er(s natural action that silt slo)ly deposited and added to his land o!er a long period of time% Be further a!erred that this accretion continues up to the present and that registration proceedings instituted by him o!er the allu!ial formation could not be concluded precisely because it continued to increase in si<e% -o<ano presented three )itnesses+ Atty% ,edro Castillo, his brother'in'la)4 Cabitunga ,asanday, a tenant of Atty% Castillo4 and Alamin Catucag, a tenant of the -o<anos% Atty% Castillo testified that the land occupied by the -o<anos )as transferred to his sister, Ramona )hen they eCtra'*udicially partitioned their parents( property upon his father(s death% =n 5eptember 9, 1913, Atty% Castillo filed a land registration case in!ol!ing the accretion )hich formed on the property and submitted for this purpose, a sur!ey plan :4; appro!ed by the "ureau of -ands as )ell as taC declarations :&; co!ering the said accretion% An =rder of ?eneral efault:.; )as already issued in the land registration case on $o!ember &, 191&, but the case itself remained pending since the petition had to be amended to include the continuing addition to the land area% 0r% Cabitunga ,asanday testified that he has continuously )or@ed on the land as tenant of the Castillos since 198&, tilling an area of about 3 hectares% Bo)e!er, the land he tilled located opposite the land of the -o<anos and ad*acent to the a!ao Ri!er has decreased o!er the years to its present si<e of about 1 hectare% Be said the soil on the ban@ of the ri!er, as )ell as coconut trees he planted )ould be carried a)ay each time there )as a flood% This similar erosion occurs on the properties of "agaipo and a certain r% Rodrigue<, since the ele!ation of the ri!erban@ on their properties is higher than the ele!ation on -o<ano(s side% Alamin Catucag testified that he has been a tenant of the Castillos since 1939 and that the portion he occupies )as gi!en to Ramona, -o<ano(s )ife% >t )as only 1 hectare in 1939 but has increased to 3 hectares due to soil deposits from the mountains and ri!er% Catucag said that "agaipo(s property )as reduced to half

since it is in the cur!e of the ri!er and its soil erodes and gets carried a)ay by ri!er )ater% =n April &, 1991, the trial court conducted an ocular inspection% >t concluded that the applicable la) is Article 4&1:1;% To the o)ners of lands ad*oining the ban@s of ri!ers belong the accretion )hich they gradually recei!e from the effects of the current of the )aters%1 of the $e) Ci!il Code and not Art% 4.1 :#; The reduction in the land area of plaintiff )as caused by erosion and not by a change in course of the a!ao Ri!er% Conformably then, the trial court dismissed the complaint% =n appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court and decreed as follo)s+ 9B3R3A=R3, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, )ith costs against the plaintiff'appellant%:9; Bence, this appeal% ,etitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in+ %%%%$=T ?>D>$? ,R="AT>D3 DA-E3 T= TB3 R3-=CAT>=$ 5ERD3F 63GB>">T H"I7 ,R3,AR3 "F ->C3$53 ?3= 3T>C 3$?>$33R ?3R5AC>= 0A?$=% TB3 CA53 =A H >R3CT=R =A -A$ 5 D5% B3>R5 =A JEA$A CAR=->$AI 140 5CRA 39. C>T3 "F TB3 R35,=$ 3$T C=ERT >$ >5R3?AR >$? 3GB>">T H"I >5 $=T A,,->CA"-3 T= TB3 CA53 AT "AR% %%%%$=T A>$ >$? TBAT A55E0>$? 9>TB=ET A 0>TT>$? TBAT TB3 JE35T>=$3 -=T 41&'C 63GB>">T H"'1I7 =CCE,>3 "F R35,=$ 3$T -3=$=R -=KA$= 9A5 TB3 R35E-T =A A$ ACCR3T>=$, TB3 ,R>$C>,-3 =A ACCR3T>=$ CA$$=T A$ =35 $=T A,,-F >$ TB3 >$5TA$T CA53 T= AAD=R 5A> R35,=$ 3$T "3CAE53 5A> -=T 41&' C >5 9>TB>$ A$ A=R0 ,ART =A ,3T>T>=$3R(5 -A$ 35CR>"3 >$ TCT $=% 1&1&1 63GB>">T HAI7 %%%%A>$ >$? ,3T>T>=$3R ?E>-TF =A -ACB35 9B3$ 5B3 >$5T>TET3 TB3 5E>T% %%%%$=T =R 3R>$? R35,=$ 3$T -3=$=R -=KA$= T= DACAT3 A$ 5ERR3$ 3R -=T 41&'C >$ AAD=R =A ,3T>T>=$3R A$ A=R B>0 T= ,AF ,3T>T>=$3R A0A?35 A=R >T5 E$-A9AE- =CCE,AT>=$ TB3R3=A% %%%%$=T B=- >$? ,3T>T>=$3R 3$T>T-3 T= TB3 A"A$ =$3 R>D3R "3 %:10;

Aor this Court(s resolution are the follo)ing issues+ id the trial court err in holding that there )as no change in course of the a!ao Ri!er such that petitioner o)ns the abandoned ri!er bed pursuant to Article 4.1 of the Ci!il CodeL id pri!ate respondent o)n -ot 41&'C in accordance )ith the principle of accretion under Article 4&1L 5hould the relocation sur!ey prepared by a licensed geodetic engineer be disregarded since it )as not appro!ed by the irector of -andsL >s petitioner(s claim barred by lachesL =n the first issue% The trial court and the appellate court both found that the decrease in land area )as brought about by erosion and not a change in the ri!er(s course% This conclusion )as reached after the trial *udge obser!ed during ocular inspection that the ban@s located on petitioner(s land are sharp, craggy and !ery much higher than the land on the other side of the ri!er% Additionally, the ri!erban@ on respondent(s side is lo)er and gently sloping% The lo)er land therefore naturally recei!ed the allu!ial soil carried by the ri!er current% :11; These findings are factual, thus conclusi!e on this Court, unless there are strong and eCceptional reasons, or they are unsupported by the e!idence on record, or the *udgment itself is based on a misapprehension of facts%:18; These factual findings are based on an ocular inspection of the *udge and con!incing testimonies, and )e find no con!incing reason to disregard or disbelie!e them% The decrease in petitioner(s land area and the corresponding eCpansion of respondent(s property )ere the combined effect of erosion and accretion respecti!ely% Art% 4.1 of the Ci!il Code is inapplicable% ,etitioner cannot claim o)nership o!er the old abandoned ri!erbed because the same is ineCistent% The ri!erbed(s former location cannot e!en be pinpointed )ith particularity since the mo!ement of the a!ao Ri!er too@ place gradually o!er an unspecified period of time, up to the present% The rule is )ell'settled that accretion benefits a riparian o)ner )hen the follo)ing re/uisites are present+ 17 That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible4 87 That it resulted from the effects of the current of the )ater4 and 37 That the land )here accretion ta@es place is ad*acent to the ban@ of the ri!er% :13; These re/uisites )ere sufficiently pro!en in fa!or of respondents% >n the absence of e!idence that the change in the course of the ri!er )as sudden or that it occurred through a!ulsion, the presumption is that the change )as gradual and )as caused by allu!ium and erosion%:14; As to -ot 41&'C, )hich petitioner insists forms part of her property under TCT $o% T'1&1&1, it is )ell to recall our holding in C.N. Hodges vs. Garcia, 109 ,hil% 133, 13&+ 2 The fact that the accretion to his land used to pertain to plaintiff(s estate, )hich is co!ered by a Torrens certificate of title, cannot preclude him 6defendant7 from being the o)ner thereof% Registration does not protect the riparian o)ner against the diminution of the area of his land through gradual changes in the course of the ad*oining stream% Accretions )hich the ban@s of ri!ers may gradually recei!e from

the effect of the current become the property of the o)ners of the ban@s 6Art% 3.. of the old Ci!il Code4 Art% 4&1 of the ne)7% 5uch accretions are natural incidents to land bordering on running streams and the pro!isions of the Ci!il Code in that respect are not affected by the -and Registration Act%:1&; ,etitioner did not demonstrate that -ot 41&'C allegedly comprising 89,1.8 s/uare meters )as )ithin the boundaries of her titled property% The sur!ey plan commissioned by petitioner )hich )as not appro!ed by the irector of -ands )as properly discounted by the appellate court% >n Titong vs. Court of Appeals:1.; )e affirmed the trial court(s refusal to gi!e probati!e !alue to a pri!ate sur!ey plan and held thus+ 2the plan )as not !erified and appro!ed by the "ureau of -ands in accordance )ith 5ec% 8#, paragraph & of Act $o% 88&9, the Cadastral Act, as amended by 5ec% 1#.8 of Act $o% 8111% 5aid la) ordains that pri!ate sur!eyors send their original field notes, computations, reports, sur!eys, maps and plots regarding a piece of property to the "ureau of -ands for !erification and appro!al% A sur!ey plan not !erified and appro!ed by said "ureau is nothing more than a pri!ate )riting, the due eCecution and authenticity of )hich must be pro!en in accordance )ith 5ec% 80 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court% The circumstance that the plan )as admitted in e!idence )ithout any ob*ection as to its due eCecution and authenticity does not signify that the courts shall gi!e probati!e !alue therefor% To admit e!idence and not to belie!e it subse/uently are not contradictory to each other2 >n !ie) of the foregoing, it is no longer necessary no) to discuss the defense of laches% >t is mooted by the dis/uisition on the foregoing issues% WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated June 30, 1994, of the Court of Appeals in C%A%'?% R% CD $o% 31.1&, sustaining the *udgment of the court a quo, is AAA>R03 % Costs against petitioner% SO ORDERED.