Property Digest 5
Property Digest 5
Property Digest 5
COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
Del Rosario owns a registered land adjacent to Estero Calubcub
which is already dried up due to the dumping of garbage by the
sorrounding neighborhood and not by any natural causes.
Defendant now occupies said dried up land until Del Rosario,
claiming ownership over the same, required him to vacate on the
basis of Article 370 of the Civil Code which provides that riparian
owner owns the dried up river bed abandoned by natural
changes.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Article 370 applies
RULING: No.
The rules on alluvion do not apply to man-made or artificial
accretions nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros
or artificial drainage systems. Considering our earlier finding that
the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub was actually caused by
the active intervention of man, it follows that Article 370 does not
apply to the case at bar and, hence, the Del Rosarios cannot be
entitled thereto supposedly as riparian owners.
The dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub should thus be
considered as forming part of the land of the public domain which
cannot be subject to acquisition by private ownership.
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
middle of the fork totaled 22.7 hectares and was labeled Lot 821822. Lot 821 is directly opposite Lot 307 and is separated by the
eastern branch of the rivers fork.
Manalo claims that Lot 821 belongs to him by way of accretion to
the submerged portion of the land to which it is adjacent.
Petitioners (Binalay, et al) who possess the Lot 821, on the other
hand, insist that they own it. They occupy the other edges of the
lot along the river bank (i.e. the fertile portions on which they
plant tobacco and other agricultural products) and also cultivate
the western strip during the summer.
Manalo filed 2 cases for forcible entry which were both dismissed.
Later on, he filed a complaint for quieting of title, possession, and
damages against petitioner. The trial court and the CA ruled in
favor of Manalo, saying that Lot 821 and Lot 307 cannot be
considered separate and distinct from each other. They reasoned
that when the land dries up for the most part of the year, the two
are connected. [Note: The CA applied the ruling in Govt of the
Phil Islands vs. Colegio de San Jose, which was actually
inappropriate because the subject matter in this case was a lake
so that the definition of a bed was diferent.]
ISSUE:
Whether or not Manalo owns Lot 821 by way of accretion
RULING: No.
The disputed property is not an accretion. It is the action of the
heavy rains that cause the highest ordinary level of waters of the
Cagayan River during the rainy season. The depressed portion is
a river bed and is thus considered property of public domain.
The SC observed the following:
a) The pictures identified by Manalo during his direct examination
depict the depressed portion as a river bed. The dried up portion
had dike-like slopes (around 8m) on both sides connecting it to
Lot 307 and Lot 821 that are vertical and very prominent.
and 2, which was located between the fishpond and Liputan River.
Reynantes family sold the nipa palms, and appropriated the fruits
as his own, without interference or complaint from Don Carlos.
Upon Don Carlos death, his heirs convinced Reynante to sign an
affidavit, relinquishing his rights as a caretaker of the fishpond.
Reynante, however, continued to live in the nipa hut he had built,
and he still took care of the nipa palms, which he continued to
sell.
This lead the heirs to file a complaint for forcible entry with
preliminary injunction against Reynante in the MTC. The MTC
found for Reynante, but the heirs appealed to the RTC, where the
decision was reversed. The CA merely affirmed the decision of the
RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accretion automatically becomes registered land
just because the adjoining lot is registered in the Torrens System?
HELD:
While it is true that alluvial deposits shall belong to the owner of
the lot adjoining such accretion, it does not automatically bestow
an imprescriptibility. If the owners of said land have not registered
this with the proper entity, said land will be subject to acquisition
by prescription, which was what occurred in this case.
REYNANTE v. CA
FACTS:
More than 50 years ago, Reynante was taken as tenant by the
late Don Cosme Carlos over a fishpond in Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Reynante subsequently built a nipa hut where he and his family
lived and took care of the nipa palms which they planted on lots 1