Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CA
GR No. 138842, 18 Oct 2000Facts:
Facts: Maximino Nazareno, Sr. and Aurea Poblete were husband and wife. Aurea died on April 15, 1970,while
Maximino, Sr. died on December 18, 1980.-They had five children, namely, Natividad, Romeo,Jose, Pacifico, and
Maximino, Jr. Natividad and Maximino, Jr. are petitioners in this case, while the estate of Maximino, Sr., Romeo, and
his wife Eliza Nazareno are the respondents.-After the death of Maximino, Sr., Romeo filed anintestate case and was
appointed administrator of his father's estate.-In the course of the intestate proceedings, Romeo discovered that his
parents had executed severaldeeds of sale conveying a number of real properties in favor of his sister, Natividad.-
One of the deeds involved six lots in Quezon Citywhich were allegedly sold by Maximino, Sr., with the consent of
Aurea, to Natividad on January 29, 1970.By virtue of these deeds, TCTs were issued toNatividad for lots 3-B, 3, 10, 11,
13 & 14-Unknown to Romeo, Natividad sold Lot 3-B, w/c hadbeen occupied by Romeo, his wife, & Maximino, Jr.,to
Maximino, Jr.-Romeo filed the present case for annulment of salew/ damages against Natividad & Maximino Jr. on
theground that both sales were void for lack of consideration-Romeo presented the Deed of Partition &Distribution
executed by Maximino Sr. & Aurea in1962 & duly signed by all of their children, exceptJose, who was then abroad.
However, this deedwas not carried out. In 1969, their parents insteadoffered to sell to them the lots-He testified
that, although the deeds of saleexecuted by his parents in their favor stated that thesale was for a consideration,
they never really paidany amount for the supposed sale. The transfer wasmade in this manner in order to avoid the
payment of inheritance taxes.-Allegedly, it was only Natividad who bought the lotsin question because she was the
only one financiallyable to do so-The trial court rendered a decision declaring thenullity of the Deed of Sale dated
January 29, 1970,except as to Lots 3, 3-B, 13 and 14 which hadpassed on to third persons.-On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the decision of the trial court was modified in the sense that titles toLot 3 (in the name of Romeo Nazareno)
and Lot 3-B(in the name of Maximino Nazareno, Jr.), as well asto Lots 10 and 11 were cancelled and orderedrestored
to the estate of Maximino Nazareno, Sr.Hence, the present petition.
Issue:
1)Whether the restoration of the titles to thelots in question to the estate of Maximino Sr.was proper 2)Whether it
was the intention of Maximino,Sr. to give the subject lots to Natividad
Held:
1)Yes. The Nazareno spouses transferredtheir properties to their children by fictitioussales in order to avoid the
payment of inheritance taxes. Facts & circumstancesindicate badges of a simulated sale w/c makethe Jan 29, 1970
sale void & of no effect.Natividad never acquired ownership over theproperty because the Deed of Sale in her favor
is also void for being w/o consideration.2)Yes. It cannot be denied that Maximino, Sr.intended to give the six Quezon
City lots toNatividad. As Romeo testified, their parentsexecuted the Deed of Sale in favor of Natividadbecause the
latter was the only "female and theonly unmarried member of the family." She wasthus entrusted with the real
properties in behalf of her siblings. As she herself admitted, sheintended to convey Lots 10 and 11 to Jose in theevent
the latter returned from abroad. There wasthus an implied trust constituted in her favor. Art.1449 of the Civil Code
states:
There is also an implied trust when a donation ismade to a person but it appears that althoughthe legal estate is
transmitted to the donee, henevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a part thereof.
There being an implied trust, the lots in questionare therefore subject to collation in accordancewith Art. 1061 which
states:
Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any
property or right which he may have received from the decedent, during thelifetime of the latter, by way of
donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may becomputed in the determination of the legitime of each
heir, and in the account of the partition.
As held by the trial court, the sale of Lots 13 and14 to Ros-Alva Marketing, Corp. will have to beupheld for it is an
innocent purchaser for valuewhich relied on the title of Natividad.
VIAJAR v. CA
It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian owner against
the diminution of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream or
river.
FACTS:
Private respondents Spouses Ladrido are owners of Lot 7511 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan Iloilo.
Petitioners are owners of the Lot 7340, which they bought from the Te. Viajar had lot 7340 relocated and found out
that the property was in the possession of Ladrido. She demanded the return but the latter refused. She instituted a
civil action for recovery of possession and damages. She also impleaded Te as defedant for the reason that if Ladrido
is going to be favored then the sale was to be annulled and plaintiff must be reimbursed. During the trial it was
proven that during the cadastral survey in 1926, the two lots were separated by the Suague River and that a part of
the land of Lot 7340 and the old river bed were in the possession of the defendants and that the plaintiffs have never
been in actual physical possession.
CFI ruled in favor of the defendants which the CA confirmed. There was a mention in the case that the issue from
which the decision of the CFI was not the issue appealed in the CA so the affirmation made by the CA should be void.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the change in the course of the Suague River was gradual or sudden
2) Whether or not the plaintiffs are protected by the Torrens System (in relation to the dimunition of the area of their
land because the plaintiffs are contending that Art 457 must be interpreted as applicable only to unregistered lands)
RULING:
It was established in the trial that for a period of 40 years the Suague river overflowed its banks yearly and
the property of the defendant gradually received deposits of soil from the effects of the current of the river.
It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian owner against
the dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream or
river. Accretions which the banks of the river may gradually receive from the effect of the current become the
property of the owners of the banks.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANTOS [G.R. No. 160453. November 12, 2012]
FACTS:
Alleging continuous and adverse possession of more than ten years, respondent Arcadio Ivan A. Santos III (Arcadio
Ivan) applied on March 7, 1997 for the registration of Lot 4998-B (the property) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Parafiaque City. The property, which had an area of 1,045 square meters, more or less, was located in Barangay San
Dionisio, Paraaque City, and was bounded in the Northeast by Lot 4079 belonging to respondent Arcadio C. Santos,
Jr. (Arcadio, Jr.), in the Southeast by the Paraaque River, in the Southwest by an abandoned road, and in the
Northwest by Lot 4998-A also owned by Arcadio Ivan.
On May 21, 1998, Arcadio Ivan amended his application for land registration to include Arcadio, Jr. as his co-
applicant because of the latters co-ownership of the property. He alleged that the property had been formed
through accretion and had been in their joint open, notorious, public, continuous and adverse possession for more
than 30 years.
Nonetheless, respondents insist that the property was already classified as alienable and disposable by the
Government. They cite as proof of the classification as alienable and disposable the following notation found on the
survey plan, to wit:
Surveyed in accordance with Survey Authority NO. 007604-48 of the Regional Executive Director issued by
the CENR-OFFICER dated Dec. 2, 1996.
This survey is inside L.C. Map No. 2623, Proj. No. 25 classified as alienable/disposable by the Bureau of Forest
Devt. on Jan. 3, 1968. On May 10, 2000 the RTC granted the application for land registration. On May 27, 2003, the
CA affirmed the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the land property survey inside L.C. Map No. 2623, Proj. No. 25 by the Bureau of Forest Devt. on Jan.
3, 1968 is classified as alienable and disposable by the Government.
HELD:
NO. The Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals; DISMISSES the application for
registration.
To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively
establish the existence of a positive act of the Government, such as a presidential proclamation, executive order,
administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator, or a legislative act or statute. Until
then, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
These rulings of the Court indicate that the notation on the survey plan of Lot 4998-B, Cad-00-000343 to the
effect that the "survey is inside a map classified as alienable/disposable by the Bureau of Forest Devt" did not prove
that Lot 4998-B was already classified as alienable and disposable. Accordingly, respondents could not validly assert
acquisitive prescription of Lot 4988-B.
The State exclusively owned Lot 4998-B and may not be divested of its right of ownership. Article 502 of the
Civil Code expressly declares that rivers and their natural beds are public dominion of the State.18 It follows that the
river beds that dry up, like Lot 4998-B, continue to belong to the State as its property of public dominion, unless
there is an express law that provides that the dried-up river beds should belong to some other person.
The IAC decision granting registration was reversed and set aside. Registration cannot be allowed.
AGUSTIN V. IAC
FACTS:
Private respondents, Maria Melad and Pablo Binuyag are among those who are occupying the western bank of the
Cagayan River while on the eastern bank is owned by petitioner Eulogio Agustin. From 1919 to 1968, the Cagayan
river has eroded the lands on the eastern bank including Agustins Lot depositing alluvium on the land possessed by
Pablo Binuyag. In 1968, after a typhoon which caused a big flood, the Cagayan River changed its course and returned
it to its 1919 bed and it cut through the lands of respondents whose lands were transferred on the eastern side. To
cultivate the lands they had to cross the river. When they were cultivating said lands, (they were planting corn)
Agustin accompanied by the mayor and some policemen claimed the land and drove them away. So Melad and
Binuyag filed separate complaints for recovery of their lots and its accretions. The Trial Court held ordered Agustin et.
al to vacate the lands and return them to respondents. On appeal, the IAC affirmed in toto the judgment thus the
case at bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents own the accretion and such ownership is not affected by the sudden and abrupt
change in the course of the Cagayan River when it reverted to its old bed
HELD: YES. Art. 457 states that the owner of the lands adjoining river banks own the accretion which they gradually
receive from the effects of the currents of the waters. Accretion benefits a riparian owner provided that these
elements are present: 1) deposit be gradual and imperceptible 2) it resulted from the effects of the current of the
water and 3) the land is adjacent to the river bank. When the River moved from 1919 to 1968, there was alluvium
deposited and it was gradual and imperceptible.
Accretion benefits the riparian owner because these lands are exposed to floods and other damage due to
the destructive force of the waters, and if by virtue of law they are subject to encumbrances and various kinds of
easements, it is only just that such risks or dangers should in some way be compensated by the right of accretion.
Also, respondents ownership over said lots was not removed when due to the sudden and abrupt change in the
course of the river; their accretions were transferred to the other side. Art. 459 states when the current of a river x x
x segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of
segregated portion retains ownership provided he removes the same w/in 2 years. And Art. 463 states that whenever
the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the
land retains ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current.