G.R. No.

68166 February 12, 1997

HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO, petitioner, 

vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT & HEIRS OF SINFOROSO PASCUAL, respondents.

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

Facts:

The applicant (Pascual) owns the property immediately adjoining the land sought to be registered. His
registered property is bounded on the east by the Talisay River, on the west by the Bulacan River, and on the north
by the Manila Bay. The Talisay River and the Bulacan River flow down towards the Manila Bay and act as boundaries
of the applicant's registered land on the east and on the west.

Sinforoso Pascual, now deceased, filed an application for foreshore lease covering a tract of foreshore
land in Bataan, having an area of approximately seventeen (17) hectares. This application was

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, such application was denied on the ground that the property formed part of the public
domain.

Sinforoso Pascual flied an application to register and confirm his title to a parcel of land. 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

Emiliano Navarro, filed an opposition to Pascual's application. Navarro claimed that the land sought to be
registered has always been part of the public domain, it being a part of the foreshore of Manila Bay; that he was a
lessee and in possession of a part of the subject property by virtue of a fishpond permit issued by the Bureau of
Fisheries

During the pendency of the land registration case, Sinforoso Pascual filed a complaint for ejectment against
Emiliano Navarro, Lopez and their privies,

The defendants in the case were alleged to have built a provisional dike thereon: thus they have thereby
deprived Pascual of the premises sought to be registered. This, notwithstanding repeated demands for defendants to
vacate the property.

RTC-The case was decided adversely against Pascual

The court  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.

The heirs of Pascual appealed

CA- reversed the findings of RTC - it was found out that the said land is sandwitched by two big rivers . . . .
These two rivers bring down considerable amount of soil and sediments during floods every year thus raising the soil
of the land adjoining the private property of the applicant [private respondents]. It is the natural action of these two
rivers that has caused the formation of said land subject of this registration case. It has been formed, therefore, by
accretion. And having been formed by accretion, the said land may be considered the private property of the riparian
owner who is the applicant herein [private respondents] . . . .
 Respondent appellate court ordered Heirs of Emiliano Navarro to vacate that portion included in their
fishpond permit

The issue:

WON the land sought to be registered be deemed an accretion in the sense that it naturally accrues in favor of the
riparian owner

Held:

No. respondent appellate court gravely misapplied statutory and case law relating to accretion, specifically,
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.

Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under said Article 457, 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. 11

(Definition of Accretion)- Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited, while alluvium is the soil deposited on
the estate fronting the river bank 12; the owner of such estate is called the riparian owner.

(Owner of Accretion)-Riparian owners are owners of lands bordering the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal
waters. 13 

The alluvium, by mandate of Article 457 of the Civil Code, is automatically owned by the riparian owner from the
moment the soil deposit can be seen 14 but is not automatically registered property, hence, subject to acquisition
through prescription by third persons 15.

Petitioners' claim of ownership over the disputed property under the principle of accretion, is misplaced.

First petitioners, Sulpicio Pascual, testified in open court that the waves of Manila Bay used to hit the disputed land
being part of the bay's foreshore but, after he had planted palapat and bakawan trees thereon in 1948, the land
began to 
rise. 16

Petitioners' own land lies between the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers. If the accretion were to be attributed to the action
of either or both of the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers, the alluvium should have been deposited on either or both of the
eastern and western boundaries of petitioners' own tract of land, not on the northern portion thereof which is adjacent
to the Manila Bay. Clearly lacking, thus, is the third requisite of accretion, which is, that the alluvium is deposited on
the portion of claimant's land which is adjacent to the river bank.

Second, petitioners' own tract of land adjoins the Manila Bay. Manila Bay is obviously not a river.

A "Bay” —is an opening into the land where the water is shut in on all sides except at the entrance; an inlet of the
sea; an arm of the sea, distinct from a river, a bending or curbing of the shore of the sea or of a lake.

It is not correct to state that the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers meet a certain portion because the two rivers both flow
towards Manila Bay. The Talisay River is straight while the Bulacan River is a little bit meandering and there is no
portion where the two rivers meet before they end up at Manila Bay. The land which is adjacent to the property
belonging to Pascual cannot be considered an accretion [caused by the action of the two rivers].
And Third, Applicant Pascual has not presented proofs to convince the Court that the land he has applied for
registration is the result of an accretion [caused by the action of the two rivers]. Said Art. 457 finds no applicability
where the accretion must have been caused by action of the bay. 18

As appellants' (titled) land . . . . acts as a barricade that prevents the two rivers to meet, and considering the wide
expanse of the boundary between said land and the Manila Bay, it is believed rather farfetched for the land in
question to have been formed through "sediments of sand.T he accretion formed at said portion of appellants' titled
[land] was not caused by the current of the two rivers but by the action of the sea (Manila Bay) into which the rivers
empty.

The trees planted by appellants in 1948 became a sort of strainer of the sea water and at the same time a kind of
block to the strained sediments from being carried back to the sea by the very waves that brought them to the former
shore at the end of the dike, which must have caused the shoreline to recede and dry up eventually raising the former
shore leading to the formation of the land in question." 19

The combined and interactive effect of the planting of palapat and bakawan trees, the withdrawal of the waters of
Manila Bay eventually resulting in the drying up of its former foreshore, and the regular torrential action of the waters
of Manila Bay, is the formation of the disputed land on the northern boundary of petitioners' own tract of land.

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

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.

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." 25 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. 26 Petitioners utterly fail to show that either the executive or legislative
department has already declared the disputed land as qualified, to be the property of petitioners as owners of the
estates adjacent thereto.

the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED.