Tabaco et. al. v. Court of Appeals et. al. (G.R. No.

100981, December 28, 1994),

A widow subdivided her small island into several lots which she sold to different buyers and
then under separate deeds of sale to petitioners.

Doña Maria Villanueva Vda. de del Rosario was the owner of a small island in Brgy. Mala
Este, Buguey, Cagayan, bounded on the north, east and west by the Alabang Creek, and on
the south, by the Buguey River. The property, which served as the widow's hacienda, was
registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-5 of the Register of Deeds of
Cagayan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On a date which does not appear in the records, the widow subdivided the island into
several lots which she sold to different buyers among whom were Alberto Soliven, Dewey
Cortez, Eusebio Villanueva, and then under separate Deeds of Sale all dated 13 May 1976,
to herein petitioners Celestino Tabaco, 1Mariano Tabaco, 2Mariano Valencia 3and Marcial
Valencia. 4chanrob

On 23 November 1982, claiming to be the riparian owners of 4-1/4 hectares of accretion,

more or less, to their lots which they bought separately from Doña Maria Villanueva Vda. de
del Rosario, petitioners instituted an action for recovery of possession and damages 5against
private respondents Antonio Tactac and Richard Villamina in the then Court of First Instance
(now Regional Trial Court) of Cagayan alleging that for many years before and after 1975,
due to the effects of the current of the Buguey River, alluvial deposits gradually
accumulated at the southern part of their lots adjoining the banks of the river; that the area
of the alluvium petitioners acquired by virtue of the accretion is more or less one hectare
each; and that, in 1975, private respondents unlawfully entered and developed the same
into fishponds against their will and despite repeated demands for them to
leave.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

For their defense, private respondents allege that they have been occupying the disputed
portion peacefully and uninterruptedly since 1965, or long before petitioners purchased their
lots in 1975; that instead of accretion, the said portion is actually part of the 20-hectare
swampland for which private respondent Antonio Tactac filed Fishpond Application No.
34504, and that said area was certified to be part of the alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain by the Office of the District Forester, Bureau of Forest Development,
Ministry of Natural Resources, Aparri, Cagayan, per certification dated 18 July
1980.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryles

Petitioners then instituted an action for recovery of possession and damages against the
private respondents alleging, among others, that they unlawfully entered and developed the
land into fishponds despite repeated demands for them to leave, and for many years alluvial
deposits of more or less one hectare each gradually accumulated at the southern part of
their lots adjoining the banks of the river. Private respondents countered that they have
been occupying the disputed portion peacefully and uninterruptedly and said area was
certified to be part of the alienable and disposable lands.

On 14 June 1989, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners holding that the
disputed 4-1/4 hectares are accretions to the latter's respective lots gradually deposited by
the current of the Buguey River, 6and ordering private respondents 7to vacate the
premises.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
 court petitioners failed
Defendants appealed to respondent Court of Appeals  8 the trial
to prove accretion by the required quantum of evidence, hence, their action
for recovery of possession and damages must
fail.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles

ISSUE: Whether the disputed 4-1/4 hectares are accretions to the properties.

The Supreme Court held that no accretion was established comparing the evidence of the
parties. Such assertion remains uncorroborated by competent evidence, testimonial or
otherwise. Apart from petitioners, no other witnesses were presented to prove the alleged
accretion. This, plus the fact that said accretions were not even registered nor declared for
taxation purposes clearly negate any idea of accretion. On top of that, certification from the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources declared the area applied formed part of the
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.