PAGES 178-185

Alluvion and Accretion distinguished

- In Art 457, it’s synonymously used, but they are not the same

Alluvion: Applied to a deposit of soil or to the soil itself

Accretion: denotes the act or process by which a riparian land gradually and imperceptivity
receives addition made by the water to which the land is contiguous

Alluvion is brought about by accretion, but the latter term is also used to refer to the former. In
Art 457, accretion is also used to mean the addition or increase received by the land adjacent to
the bank of a river from the deposit of soil
- One claiming accretion has burden of proof

Requisites of Alluvion or accretion

- Accretion is a mode of acquiring property in Art 457 and requires concurrence of the 3
requisites.
- If these are present, it automatically gives the owners of lands adjoining the banks and
rivers/streams any accretion gradually received from the effects of the current of waters

To enjoy benefits of accretion a riparian owner must show by preponderance of evidence that
he has met all conditions
1. The deposit or accumulation of soil or sediment must be gradual and imperceptible
2. The accretion results from the effects or action of the current of the waters of the rive
and
3. The land where accretion takes place must be adjacent to the bank of a river

Deposit or accumulation of soil/sediment

1. Gradual deposit on one side
- When the boundary between two estates is a river or a stream, the bed of which
belongs to neither of them, the gradual increase of one side is for the benefit thereof
and doesn’t prejudice the property on the opposite side because in accordance with Art
457, the owner of adjoining estate increased by alluvium acquires title thereto by
accretion
- This requisite is present where the “Cagayan River did move year by year from 1919 to
1968’’ or for a period of 49 years, “and within this period,’’ the alluvium deposited has
caused “the original lands of the plaintiffs’’ to “become greater in area,’’ and “the
addition in every year is imperceptible in nature, one could not discern it but can be
measured after the lapse of a certain time.’’

2. Deposit made by a flood

 - A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is not the alluvial process
contemplated under Article 457. It is the slow and hardly perceptible accumulation of
soil deposits that the law grants to the riparian owner.
- The opinion has been ex- pressed, however, that if the alluvial deposit is sudden as
when the formation is made overnight after a flood, the rule applicable to formation of
islands should govern. Others believe that Article 457 would still apply. As long as it is
in- disputable that the formation is alluvium, there is no sound reason why the article
should not apply.

3. Need to register increase in area

- It’s explicit from art 457 that alluvial deposits along the banks of a river don’t form part
of the public domain as the alluvial property automatically belongs to the owner of the
estate to which it may have been added.
- The only restriction provided by law is that the owner of the adjoining property must
register the same under the torrens system, otherwise, the alluvial property may be
subject to acquisition thru prescription by 3rd persons

Effects or action of the current of waters

1. Deposit caused by work of nature
- Word Current indicates the participation of the body of water in the ebb and flow of
waters due to high and low tide.
- Hence, alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature and not made artificially by the
riparian owner.
- The increase or accretion which in a latten, incessant and spontaneous manner is
received by the lad from the natural effects of the current depositing, in the course of
time, sediments and alluvial matter along the shore, must therefore, be the work of
nature.
- Thus the fact that all or almost all the whole area of the increased portion is soft an
unsettled, one is naturally convinced that it was formed by alluvion, and that for such
reason, it appertains to the owner of the land bordering thereon by virtue of the right of
accretion recognized by law
2. Deposit caused by human intervention
- Alluvium produced gradually due to defensive works constructed by a riparian owner to
protect his property against the damaging actions of the water and not designed
expressly to bring about accretion, should also belong to him because the reason behind
the law exists in such case.
- But deposits consist of boulders soil, sawdust, and other filling materials, caused by
human intervention are excluded from Art 457 and as such would still be part of the
public domain
- When there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the addition was made gradually
thru the effects of the current of the water, but on the contrary, there is evidence that
the alleged alluvial deposits were man-made, a riparian owner doesn’t acquire the
addition to his land
 - FOOTNOTE: it is preposterous to believe that almost 4 hectares of land came into being
because of the effects of the Meycauyan and Bocaue rivers. The lone witness of the
private respondents who happen to be their overseer and whose husband was first
cousin of their father noticed the 3-hectare accretion to the 12 hectare fishpond only in
1939. The respondents claim that at this point in time, accretion had already taken. If
so, their witness was incompetent to testify to aa gradual and imperceptible increase to
their land in the years before 1939.
- However, the witness testified that in that year, she observed an increase in the area of
the original fishpond which is now the land in question. If she was telling the truth, the
accretion was sudden. However, there is evidence that the alleged alluvial deposits were
artificial and man-made and not the exclusive result of the current of the Meycauayan
and Bocaue rivers.
- The alleged alluvial deposits came into being not because of the sole effect of the current
of the rivers but as a result of the transfer of the dike towards the river and encroaching
upon it.
o The land sought to be registered is not even dry land cast imperceptibly and
gradually by the river’s current on the fishpond adjoining it. It is under two
meters of water.
o The private respondents’ own evidence shows that the water in the fishpond is
two meters deep on the side of the pilapil facing the fishpond and only one meter
deep on the side of the pilapil facing the river.
o Hence, the riparian owner does not acquire the additions to his land caused by
special works expressly intended or designed to bring about accretion.
o When the private respondents transferred their dikes towards the river bed, the
dikes were meant for reclamation purposes and not to protect their property
from the destructive force of the waters of the river.’’

Accretion on land adjoining bank of river

1. Provision N/A where the parcels of land bought by thee respondent border on the
eastern branch of the Cagayan River and the claimed accretion (Lot 821) lies on the bank
of the river not adjacent to the land (Lot 307) owned by him but directly opposite said
land across the river.
- Any accretion formed by the eastern branch of the river w/c the respondent may claim
must be deposited on or attached to Lot 307.

2. When an island has been formed in a river (Cagayan River), and a grant for the part of the
island is obtained from the State, accretion added thereto in the course of time belongs to
the owner of that portion of the island to which it is added.

- The island must be treated as if it were mainland. Article 457, in speaking of accretion
which the banks of rivers may gradually receive from the effect of the current,
presupposes that the river continues its existence; if the river disappears, it is Article 461
which governs.
- The drying up of a river can’t be treated as an accretion under Art 457. The dried up bed
is property of public dominium
 3. The addition formed by alluvion belongs automatically to the riparian owner as a
natural incident to ownership.

- FOOTNOTE: where a land is sold on installment basis, any accretion y the land even
before payment of the last installment belongs to the purchaser.
o Having acquired the beneficial and equitable title over the land the purchaser is
entitled to all the benefits which may accrue to the land as well as suffer the
losses that may befall it.

The law doesn’t require an express act of appropriation or possession to acquire

ownership of the alluvial accumulation.

- But private persons can’t by themselves reclaim land from public waters (e.g. Laguna de
Bay) without proper permission from gov’t authorities and even if such reclamation has
been authorized, the reclaimed lands doesn’t automatically belong to the party claiming
the same as they mays till be subject to the terms of the authority granted earlier.

Accretion on land adjoining seashore or lake

Article 457 deals with accessions of lands situated on banks of rivers but not on the seashore.
Lands added to the shores by accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea
form part of the public domain.

FOOTNOTE: Owner bears loss of land eroded by the sea. Manila Bay is considered a sea for purposes of determining which
law of accretion is to be applied. But Laguna de Bay is a lake, the accretion on which by the mandate of Article 84 of the Spanish
Law of Waters of 1866 which is still a valid law, belongs to the owner of the land contiguous thereto.

1. Thus, Article 457 does not apply where the accretion is caused by action of Manila Bay, it
being a part of the sea, a mere indentation of the same.

- Until a formal declaration on the part of the government through the executive or the
legislative department, to the effect that such lands are no longer needed for coast guard
service, for public use, or for special industries, they continue to be part of the public
domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership nor subject to ordinary
prescription, being outside the sphere of commerce.

2. But accretions on the bank of a lake, like Laguna de Bay, have been held to belong to the
owners of the lands to which they are added.

- That part it w/c becomes covered with water 4-5 months a year, not due to tidal action,
but due to rain, can’t be considered as part of the bed or basin of the Bay nor as
foreshore lands, and therefore, registerable under the Torrens system.

3. Under Article 502(4), lakes and their beds belong to the public domain. Under the
Spanish Law of Waters which was extended to the Philippines and is still in force today
(except insofar as its provisions are inconsistent with the new Civil Code and the Water
Code of the Philippines) “the natural bed or basin of lakes, ponds, or pool is the ground
 covered by their waters when at their highest ordinary depth’’ during the dry season
(Sec. 74 thereof.), and “accretion’’ deposited gradually upon lands contiguous to creeks,
streams, rivers and lakes, by accessions or sediments from the waters thereof belong to
the owners of such lands.’’ (Sec. 84 thereof.)

- Therefore, portions of land formed by accretion not forming part of the bed of a lake (i.e., not
covered by its waters at their highest ordinary depth) do not belong to the public
domain.

Elements of a river and their ownership

A river is a compound concept consisting of three elements:

(1) running waters,

(2) the bed, and

(3) the banks.

- All these parts constitute the river, the whole river; it cannot exist without all its parts.
- Since a river is but one compound concept, it should have only one nature, i.e., it should
either be totally public or completely private.
- And since rivers, whether navigable or not, are of public dominion (see Art. 420[1].), it is
implicit that all the three component elements be of the same nature also.

River Bed

1. The natural bed or channel of a creek or river is the ground covered by its waters during
the highest (ordinary) floods. (Art 70 Spanish Law of Waters defining beds of rivers and
creeks)

- “Natural’’ is not made synonymous to “original’’ or “prior condition.’’ On the contrary,

even if a river should leave its original bed so long as it is due to the force of nature, the
new course would still fall within the scope of the definition provided above. Hence, the
law must have used the word “natural’’ only because it is in keeping with the ordinary
nature and concept of a river always to have bed and banks.

2. River beds are classified as property of the public domain under Article 420(1) and
Article 502(1). Hence, they are not open to registration under the Torrens system.

- Riverbeds that dry up continue to belong to the State as its property of public dominion
unless there is an express law that provides that dried up river beds belong to some other
person

3. And where a riparian owner claims that a dried river bed is his by accretion, in order to
bring the same under the operation and coverage of the Land Registration Law (now
 Property Registration Decree [Pres. Decree No. 1529].), a petition for the registration of
land title should be filed.

- The approval by the court and the Land Registration Authority of a subdivision plan
covering the increased area is not sufficient. The law does not authorize the inclusion of
an area not embraced in the title or in excess of what is stated in the title.

River Banks

Referring to “Those lateral strips or zones of its bed which are washed by the stream only
during such high floods as do not cause inundations.’’ *Art 73 of Spanish Law defining banks
of river)

- The use of the words “of its bed (de sus alveos)” clearly indicates the intent of the law to
consider banks for all legal purposes as part of river bed
- Since undeniably, all beds of rivers are of public ownership, it follows that the banks
which form part of them, are also of public ownership. Article 420(2) is very clear that
“property in- tended for public use such as x x x rivers, x x x banks, shores, x x x and
others of similar character’’ are property of public do- main. (see Art. 638.) River banks
are declared as public property since they are destined for public use.
- That plants can and do grow on the banks which otherwise could not have grown in the
bed which is constantly subjected to the flow of the waters proves the distinction
between “beds’’ and “banks’’ in the physical order. However, in the legal order, legal
definitions prevail.

Reason for Alluvion

Reasons for granting a riparian owner right to any land or alluvion deposited by a river:

(1) to compensate him for the danger of loss that he suffers because of the location of his land
(for estates bordering on rivers are exposed to floods and other damage produced by the
destructive force of the waters);

(2) to compensate him for the encumbrances and various kinds of easements to which his
property is subject; and

(3) to promote the interests of agriculture for the riparian owner is in the best position to utilize
the accretion.

Furthermore, it is almost impossible to prove from whose lands the gradual additions came
from.

Alluvion cause by artificial works

1. Protecting wall built on riparian property

- The above reasons do not exist where there is a high protecting wall built on the riparian
property bordering on an estero (river) on which a house stands, and where said estero
has no regular and continuous current that might damage or destroy the riparian
property by force and, therefore, the alluvium de- posited immediately outside the wall
is not the alluvium con- templated by law.

2. Special works intended to bring about accretion

- a riparian owner cannot acquire the addition to his land caused by special works (e.g.,
dikes) expressly in- tended by him to bring about accretion (i.e., for reclamation
purposes) and not to protect his property from the destructive force of the waters of the
river.

3. Fish traps not intended to cause accretion

- Where, however, the accreted land had been formed gradually due to the effect of the
water current of the creek, the riparian owner may invoke the benefit of alluvion to
support his claim of title thereto. The fact that the fish traps set up in the creek might
have slowed down its current, and might have been brought about or caused accretion,
will not affect his ownership, in the absence of evidence, to show that the setting up or
erection of the fish traps was expressly intended to cause or bring about the accretion.