11. Maneclang (Petitioneer) v.

Intermediate Appellate Court (Respondent)

FACTS: Adriano Maneclang in this case filed a complaint for quieting of title over a certain
fishpond located within the 4 parcels of land belonging to them situated in Pangasinan but
the trial court dismissed it by saying that the body of water is a creek constituting a tributary
to Agno River therefore public in nature and not subject to private appropriation. They
appealed it to the IAC which affirmed the aforementioned decision. Hence, this review on
certiorari. However, after having been asked to comment to the case thereon, they manifested
their lack of interest and the parties to the case (the complainant and the awardee in the
public bidding Maza) decided to amicably settle the case saying that judgment be rendered
and that the court recognize the ownership of the petitioners over the land the body of water
found within their titled properties. They say that there would be no benefit since the NIA
already constructed a dike and no water now gets in and out of the land.

ISSUE: Whether or not the fishpond is public in nature.

HELD: Yes. A creek is defined as a recess or arm extending from a river and participating in
the ebb and flow of the sea. It is a property belonging to the public domain and is not
susceptible to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. The mere construction of
the dikes by NIA nor its conversion to a fishpond altered or changed the nature of the creek
as property of the public domain. The compromise agreement is null and void and of no legal
effect because it is contrary to law and public policy.