HEIRS OF NAVARRO V.

IAC
G.R. No. 681166
FACTS:
Sinforoso Pascual sits in the midst of a land registration case. The
story begins on 1946 upon his desire to register land on the northern
section of his existing property. His current registered property is bounded
on the east by Talisay River, on the West by Bulacan River and on the
North by the Manila bay. Both rivers flow towards the Manila Bay. Because
of constantly flowing water, extra land of about 17hectares (thats about the
size of Disney Park!) formed in the northern most section of the property. It
is this property he sought to register.
The RTC denied the registration claiming this to be foreshore land
and part of public domain (remember, accretion formedby the sea is public
dominion). His Motion for Reconsideration likewise burned. In 1960, he
attempted registry again, claiming that the Talisay and Bulacan rivers
deposited more silt resulting on accretion. He claimed this land as riprarian
owner. The Director of Lands, Director of Forestry and the Fiscal opposed.
Then a new party surfaced. Mr Emiliano Navarro jumped into the fray
opposing the same application, stating the he leased part of the property
sought to be registered. He sought to protect his fishpond that rested on
the same property. Sinforoso was not amused and filed ejectment against
Mr. Navarro, claiming that Navarro used stealth force and strategy to
occupy a portion of his land. Pascual lost the case against Navarro so he
appealed. During the appeal, his original land registration case was
consolidated and tried jointly. (alas Pascual died) The heirs of Pascual took
over the case.
On 1975, the court decided that the property was foreshore land and
therefore part of public domain. The RTC dismissed the complaint of
Pascual for ejectment against Navarro and also denied his land registration
request. Pascuals heirs appealed and the RTC was reversed by the IAC.
The Apellate court granted petition for registration! The reason? The
accretion was caused by the two rivers, not manila bay. Hence it wasnt
foreshore land. (BUT the confusion lies in the fact that the accretion formed
adjacent to Manila Bay which is sea!) Aggrieved, the Director of Forestry
moved for reconsideration (Government insists it is foreshore and hence,
public domain). The Apellate court denied all motions of the Director and
the Government.
The matter went to the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accretion taking place on property adjacent to the
sea can be registered under the Torrens system.
HELD:
It cannot be registered. This is land of Public domain. Pascual claimed
ownership under Article 457 of the Civil Code saying that the disputed 14hectare land is an accretion caused by the joint action of the Talisay and

Bulacan Rivers Art 457: Accretion as a mode of acquiring property and

requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the
accumulation of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be
the result of the action of the waters of the river; and (3) that the land where
the accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river.
Unfortunately, Pasucal and Heirs claim of ownership based on Art 457 is
misplaced. If theres any land to be claimed, it should be land ADJACENT
to the rivers Talisay and Bulacan. The law is clear on this. Accretion of land
along the river bank may be registered. This is not the case of accretion of
land on the property adjacent to Manila Bay.
Furthermore, Manila Bay is a sea. Accretion on a sea bank is foreshore
land and the applicable law is not Art 457 but Art 4 of the Spanish Law of
Waters of 1866. This law, while old, holds that accretion along sea shore
cannot be registered as it remains public domain unless abandoned by
government for public use and declared as private property capable of
alienation.
Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 provides as
follows:
Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits caused by
the action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no
longer washed by the waters of the sea and are not necessary for purposes
of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for the
coast-guard service, the Government shall declare them to be the property
of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as increment thereof.
The IAC decision granting registration was reversed and set aside.
Registration cannot be allowed.