HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO, petitioner,

vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT & HEIRS OF SINFOROSO
PASCUAL, respondents.
G.R. No. 68166 February 12, 1997
FIRST DIVISION

PONENTE: HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

FACTS:
Pascual was the owner of a parcel of land, its east side bounded by the
Talisay River, the west bounded by the Bulacan River, and the north side
bounded by the Manila Bay. The flow of both rivers meet and empty into the
Manila Bay. An accretion formed at the tip of Pascual's land (adjacent to Manila
Bay) and he sought to register it in his name as a riparian owner. During trial,
Pascual testified that the waves of Manila Bay used to hit the land being part of
Manila Bay's foreshore, but after he had planted palapat and bakawan trees
thereon in 1948, the land began to rise.

ISSUE:
Whether or not 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?

RULING:
Petitioners' claim of ownership over the disputed property under the
principle of accretion, is misplaced. Requisites underArticle 457 are: 1. The
accumulation of the soil or sediment is gradual and imperceptible; 2. That it be
the result of the action of RIVER waters; and 3. The land where the accretion
takes place is adjacent (lying next) to the RIVER bank.

If the accretion were to be attributed to the action of either or both of the

Talisay and Bulacan Rivers, the alluvium (the soil deposited on the estate
fronting the RIVER bank) should have been deposited on either or both of the
eastern and western boundaries of Pascual's land, and not on the northern
portion thereof which is adjacent to the Manila Bay. Clearly lacking, thus, is the
third requisite of accretion, which is, that the alluvium is deposited on the
portion of claimant's land which is adjacent to the river bank.
The disputed land, thus, is an accretion not on a river bank but on a sea
bank, or on what used to be the foreshore of Manila Bay which adjoined
petitioners' own tract of land on the northern side. As such, the applicable law
is not Article 457 of to Civil Code but Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of
1866. Therefore, the land sought to be registered forms part of the lands of
public domain which is intended for public uses, and "so long as the land in
litigation belongs to the national domain and is reserved for public uses, it is
not capable of being appropriated by any private person, except through
express authorization granted in due form by a competent authority."

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED and
DISMISSED.
 DESAMPARADO VDA. DE NAZARENO and LETICIA NAZARENO
TAPIA, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, MR. & MRS. JOSE SALASALAN, MR. & MRS. LEO
RABAYA, AVELINO LABIS, HON. ROBERTO G. HILARIO, ROLLEO I. IGNACIO,
ALBERTO M. GILLERA and HON. ABELARDO G. PALAD, JR., in their official
and/or private capacities, respondents.
G.R. No. 98045 June 26, 1996
SECOND DIVISION
PONENTE: ROMERO, J.:
FACTS:
Sometimes in 1979, private respondents Salasalan and Rabaya leased the
subject lots on which their houses stood from one Antonio Nazareno,
petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest. In the latter part of 1982, private
respondents allegedly stopped paying rentals. As a result, petitioners filed a
case for ejectment with the MTC of Cagayan De Oro.
A decision was rendered against private respondents, which decision was
affirmed by the RTC of Misamis Oriental.
Before he died, Antonio Nazareno caused the approval by the Bureau of
Lands of the Survey plan with a view of perfecting his title over the accretion
which are being claimed by him. Before the approved survey plan could be
released to the applicant, however it was protested by private respondents
before the Bureau of Lands.
Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands Roberto Hilario rendered a
decision ordering the amendment of the survey plan in the name of Antonio
Nazareno by segregating therefrom the areas occupied by the private
respondents who, if qualified, may file public land applications covering their
respective portions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accretion that formed in the land of the petitioner
was man-made or artificial.
RULING:
Petitioners claim that the subject land is private land being an accretion
to his titled property, applying Art. 457 of the Civil Code which provides: • To
the owner of lands adjoining the banks of river belong the accretion which they
gradually receive from the effect of the current of the water.
In the case of Meneses v. CA, this Court held that accretion, as a mode
of acquiring property under Art. 457 of the Civil Code, requires the concurrence
of these 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 (or
sea); and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks
of rivers (or the sea coast). These are called the rules on alluvion which if
present in a case, give to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers or
streams any accretion gradually received from the effects of the current of
waters.
For petitioners to insist on the application of these rules on alluvion to
their case, the above-mentioned requisites must be present. However, they
admit that the accretion was formed by the dumping of boulders, soil and other
filling materials on portions of the Balacanas Creek and the Cagayan River
bounding their land. 3 It cannot be claimed, therefore, that the accumulation of
such boulders, soil and other filling materials was gradual and imperceptible,
resulting from the action of the waters or the current of the Balacanas Creek
and the Cagayan River. In Hilario v. City of Manila, 4 this Court held that the
word "current" indicates the participation of the body of water in the ebb and
flow of waters due to high and low tide. Petitioners' submission not having met
the first and second requirements of the rules on alluvion, they cannot claim
the rights of a riparian owner.
Furthermore, the Bureau of Lands, classified the subject land as an
accretion are which was formed by deposits of sawdust in Balacanas Creek and
the Cagayan river, in accordance with the ocular inspection conducted by the
Bureau of Land. It is this Court's irresistible conclusion, therefore, that the
accretion was man-made or artificial.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
 PEDRO P. ROXAS, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
JULIA TUASON, THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN PEDRO MACATI, AND
ALEJANDRO AND CONSOLACION AGUIRRE, respondents-appellants.
G.R. No. L-3788 December 21, 1907
EN BANC

PONENTE: TORRES, J.:

FACTS:
On February 19, 1906, petitioner Pedro Roxas, through counsel, caused
the registration of four different parcels of land (A, B, C, D) which he acquired
by inheritance. Julia Tuason, one of the owners of the adjoining properties set
forth her opposition as to the registration and authentication of the title of the
petitioner as regard to the parcel of land marked “C”. The only subject of
controversy is the question of the boundary line, between their respective
contiguous premises. The representative of the petitioner affirms that the real
boundary of the hacienda on the side that adjoins the land of Tuason was and
still is a creek or sapa separating both properties, and that in former years said
creek was wider than that at the present time.

The respondent, however, maintains that the boundary between the sitio
called Suavoy, formerly an island of that name, and the Hacienda of San Pedro
Macati is determined by straight lines drawn between some old monuments
distant a few yards from the bank of the said creek.

ISSUE:
Who has the better right to the accretion?

RULING:
Pedro Roxas the better right to the accretion. Article 366 as amended by
Article 457 of the Civil Code in dealing with the right of accession to real
property reads:
The accretions which banks of rivers may gradually receive from the
effects of the currents belong to the owners of the estates bordering
thereon.

The provision in this article is perfectly applicable to the strip of land,

which, on account of the accretion, has come to be undeniable increase in the
land of the hacienda inasmuch as it has increased all along the bank of the
creek, the gradual effect of the currents; and even though the law does not
require an express act of possession of the accretion which has enlarged the
estate, it is certain that the owner of the hacienda has possessed it for more
than thirty years through his tenants, who have been cultivating their
respective parcels of land together with the corresponding portion of the said
strip down to the bank of said creek.

For these considerations the question of the situation of the old

monuments and the placing of new ones in the intervening space is of no
importance, inasmuch as it has already been shown that the respondent has no
title to the accretion which by spontaneous increase formed the strip of land
between the creek and the monuments, and no proof is offered in the record
that the land of Julia Tuason reached the other side of the creek toward the
Hacienda of San Pedro Macati.

In conclusion: The result of the evidence, as stated in the judgment

appealed from, does not maintain the claim of the respondent; on the contrary,
it has been shown in a convincing manner that the present natural limit of both
properties is the aforesaid creek; therefore, the opposition filed by Julia Tuason
is untenable.
 LEONIDA CUREG, ROMEO, PEPITO, HERNANDO, MANUEL, ANTONIO AND
ELPIDIO (ALL SURNAMED CARNIYAN) petitioner,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, (4TH CIVIL CASES DIVISION), DOMINGO
APOSTOL, SOLEDAD GERARDO, ROSA GERARDO, NIEVES GERARDO,
FLORDELIZA GERARDO, AND LILIA MAQUINAD, respondent.
G.R. No. 73465 September 7, 1989
FIRST DIVISION

PONENTE: MEDIALDEA, J.:

FACTS:
On November 5, 1982, private respondents Domingo Apostol et al. filed a
complaint for quieting of title against petitioners Leonida Cureg et al. The
complaint alleged that private respondents, except Apostol, are the legal and/or
the forced heirs of the late Domingo Gerardo, and his predecessors-in-interest
have been in actual, open, peaceful and continuous possession, under a bona
fide claim of ownership of a parcel of land (referred to as their “motherland”).
Subsequently, the heirs verbally sold the “motherland” to Apostol. The
“motherland” showed signs of accretion caused by the movement of the
Cagayan River. When private respondents were about to cultivate their
“motherland” together with its accretion, they were prevented by the
petitioners.

Petitioners alleged that the “motherland” claimed by the private

respondents is non-existent, that the “subject land” is an accretion to their
registered land, and that petitioners have been in possession and cultivation of
the “accretion” for many years now.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the accretion.

RULING:
Yes. The petitioners are entitled to the accretion. The “subject land” is an
alluvial deposit left by the northward movement of the Cagayan River and
pursuant to Article 457 of the New Civil Code:

“To the owners of land adjoining the banks of river belong the accretion
which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.”
However, the increase in the area of the petitioner’s land, being an accretion left
by the change of course or the northward movement of the Cagayan River does
not automatically become registered land just because the lot which receives
such accretion is covered by a Torrens title. As such, it must also be placed
under the operation of the Torrens system.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision appealed
from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING
Civil Case No. Br. III-373 for quieting of title and damages.