§

Jagualig v CA
Nov 10, 2015

Facts:

Subject of Controversy
- Parcel of land located in Sta. Cruz, Tagoloan
- It forms part of an island in a non-navigable river

Antecedent Facts
- Respondent Janita Eduave claims that she inherited the disputed land from her father
due to a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. Said land is also taxed
- 1964. ​The land was eroded due to a typhoon, destroying the bigger portion and
improvements therein
- 1966. ​However, because of the movement of the river, deposits that were not eroded
increased the area of the land.
- 1970. ​Respondents started planting bananas
- 1973. ​Petitioners asked permission from respondents if they can plan corn and bananas
- Respondents engaged the services of a surveyor and monuments were placed on the
land. Further, they paid taxes and mortgaged the same
- 1979. ​The land was subject to a reconveyance case ​Janita Eduave v Heirs of Antonio
Factura ​and was settled by compromise.
- Heirs of Factura ceded a part of the land to respondent, Janita, after a decision
subdividing Lot no. 62

Problem
- Petitioners denied the claim of ownership by respondents, asserting that they
(petitioners) are the true owners
- They allege that after the typhoon in ​1964​, an island was created as a result of the river
flow (land in litigation). Furthermore, they say that they started occupying the land on
1969.

Procedural History

RTC
- Dismissed the complaint of private respondents for failing to prove ownership by
preponderance of evidence
- Furthermore, they said that the island is a Delta, forming part of a river bed which the
government may use; hence, ​it was outside the commerce of man.
CA
- Reversed​ the RTC ruling, basing its decision on ​Art 463 and 465 of the Civil Code​.
- Hence, they declared respondents as the lawful and true owner
- They ordered petitioners to vacate
Hence, this petition
Issues:
W/N the CA erred in applying Art 463 and 465 of Civil Code, entitling the respondents to the
questioned land. ​NO

Ruling

Art 463 - Discussion

- Article 463.​ Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece
of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also
retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current. (374)
- Reasons
- Two witnesses confirming the metes and bounds of the property of respondents
and the effect of the typhoon on the same
- Trial court did not consider other evidence that prove ownership such as
- Payment of taxes
- Monuments placed by surveyor
- Hence,​ the land belongs to respondents. Said property was identified by evidence, and it
just so happens that the floods created such an island.

Art 465 - ​arguendo d​ iscussion

- Article 465.​ Islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial deposits are formed in
non-navigable and non-floatable rivers, belong to the owners of the margins or banks nearest
to each of them, or to the owners of both margins if the island is in the middle of the river, in
which case it shall be divided longitudinally in halves. If a single island thus formed be more
distant from one margin than from the other, the owner of the nearer margin shall be the sole
owner thereof. (373a)
- The island is longer than the property of respondents
- Hence, they are ​ipso jure to be owners of the portion which corresponds to the length
of their property along the margin of the river.

- Respondents are still entitled to the land even if said land was not identified
-