You are on page 1of 2

GRANDE V.

CA
FACTS:
The Grandes are owners of a parcel of land in Isabela, by inheritance from their deceased mother, Patricia Angui, who likewise, inherited it from her parents. In the early 1930s, the Grandes decided to have their land surveyed for registration purposes. The land was described to have Cagayan River as the northeastern boundary, as stated in the title. By 1958, a gradual accretion took place due to the action of the current of the river, and an alluvial deposit of almost 20,000 sq.m. was added to the registered area. The Grandes filed an action for quieting of title against the Calalungs, stating that they were in peaceful and continuous possession of the land created by the alluvial deposit until 1948, when the Calalungs allegedly trespassed into their property. The Calalungs, however, stated that they were the rightful owners since prior to 1933.

The CFI found for the Grandes and ordered the Calalungs to vacate the premises and pay for damages. Upon appeal to the CA, however, the decision was reversed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alluvium deposited land automatically belongs to the riparian owners?

HELD:
Art. 457 dictates that alluvium deposits on land belong to the owners of the adjacent land. However, this does not ipso jure become theirs merely believing that said land have become imprescriptible. The land of the Grandes only specifies a specific portion, of which the alluvial deposits are not included, and are thus, subject to acquisition by prescription. Since the Calalungs proved that they have been in possession of the land since 1934 via two credible witnesses, as opposed to the Grandes single witness who claims that the Calalungs only entered the land in 1948, the Calalungs have been held to have acquired the land created by the alluvial deposits by prescription. This is because the possession took place in 1934, when the law to be followed was Act 190, and not the New Civil Code, which only took effect in 1950.

Heirs of Navarro v. IAC


HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT & HEIRS OF SINFOROSO PASCUAL Facts: On October 3, 1946, Sinforoso Pascual filed an application for foreshore lease covering a tract of foreshore land in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan, having an area of approximately seventeen (17) hectares. This application was denied on January 15, 1953. So was his motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, also now deceased, Emiliano Navarro, filed a fishpond application with the Bureau of Fisheries covering twenty five (25) hectares of foreshore land also in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan. Initially the application was denied, eventually however the grant was given. Pascual claimed that this land is an accretion to his property, The Talisay River as well as the Bulacan River flow downstream and meet at the Manila Bay thereby depositing sand and silt on Pascual's property resulting in an accretion thereon. Sinforoso Pascual claimed the accretion as the riparian owner. On March 25, 1960, the Director of Lands, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, filed an opposition thereto stating that neither Pascual nor his predecessors-in-interest possessed sufficient title to the subject property, the same being a portion of the public domain and, therefore, it belongs to the Republic of the Philippines. On November 10, 1975, the courta quo rendered judgment finding the subject property to be foreshore land and, being a part of the public domain, it cannot be the subject of land registration proceedings. On appeal, the respondent court reversed the findings of the courta quo and granted the petition for registration of the subject property but excluding certain areas. A motion for reconsideration was filed by in the CA but the same was denied. Anchoring their claim of ownership on Article 457 of the Civil Code, petitioners vigorously argue that the disputed 14-hectare land is an accretion caused by the joint action of the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers which run their course on the eastern and western boundaries, respectively, of petitioners' own tract of land. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners can rightfully claim the land under the principle of accretion Held: The petitioners claim is misplaced. The principle of accretion is only applicable to owners whose estates are adjacent to rivers as stated in Article 457 of the Civil Code. The disputed land 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. The disputed property is an accretion on a sea bank, Manila Bay being an inlet or an arm of the sea; as such, the disputed property is, under Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, part of the public domain. As part of the public domain, the herein disputed land 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."Only the executive and possibly the legislative departments have the right and the power to make the declaration that the lands so gained by action of the sea is no longer necessary for purposes of public utility or for the cause of establishment of special industries or for coast guard services. Petitioners utterly fail to show that either the executive or legislative department has already declared the disputed land as qualified, under Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, to be the property of petitioners as owners of the estates adjacent thereto.