MAYOR OF

PARANAQUE v
EBIO
GR NO. 178411, JUNE 23, 2010
“increase in area”
ISSUES

1. Who owns the alluvial

deposits that have
gradually settled along the
banks of a creek?
2. W/N respondent Mario
Ebio and his children and
heirs are the rightful
owners of the subject
land.
 RULES: FRAMEWORK

Are alluvial State owns it

deposits Yes
(not subject to
that
prescription)
gradually Is it titled
settled along by the
a creek part owner of
of public Who owns it? the
domain? No
adjoining
land?

Yes No
One who acquires
Owner of adjoining by prescription
land owns it owns it
(Grande v CA) (Grande v CA, Art. 1137,
NCC)
 RULES
Spanish Law of Waters
ART. 84. Accretions deposited gradually upon lands
contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers, and lakes, by
accessions or sediments from the waters thereof,
belong to the owners of such lands
New Civil Code
Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks
of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually
receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
Grande v CA
“the owner of the adjoining property must register the
same under the Torrens system; otherwise, the
alluvial property may be subject to acquisition
through prescription by third persons”
New Civil Code
Article 1137. Ownership and other real rights over
immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted
adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without
need of title or of good faith.
Republic v CA
Registration was never intended as a means of
acquiring ownership. A decree of registration merely
confirms, but does not confer, ownership.
 FACTS: TIMELINE
1987 – Pedro
1999 – SB Res. No. 8,
Land involved executed Notarized
1999 (seeks to
is an accretion Transfer of Rights on
construct an access
the land in favor of
of Cut-cut road along the bank of
Mario Ebio; Tax
the creek); Ebios were
creek. declarations were
advised to vacate
transferred to Mario

2003: Brgy. Officials

Original occupant 1966- Guaranteed
Homes Inc, owner of cut trees
and possessor was
the adjoining land, 2005: City
Jose Vitalez, great donated the subject
grandfather of Administrator
land to Paranaque
Ebio’s. ordered Ebios to
LGU
vacate

1966 – Pedro 2005: Ebios filed an

Road Lot No. 1930 – Jose obtained tax action for preliminary
gave the land injunction against
8 declaration after
petitioners; admitted
Owned by: to his son executing affidavit that application for
Pedro Vitalez of possession and patent still pending
Guaranteed occupancy with DENR
Homes, Inc.
1964 – Couple
1961 – Mario Ebio established their RTC: denied
married Pedro’s home on the lot.
daughter, Zenaida. They secured CA: reversed
building permits.
 ARGUMENTS
Mayor of Paranaque, et al
• Since the creek, being a tributary of the river,
is classified as part of the public domain, any
land that may have formed along its banks
through time should also be considered as
part of the public domain.
Ebio, et al
• Their predecessor-in-interest, Pedro Vitalez,
possessed the subject land as early as 1930.
• In 1964, Mario Ebio secured building permit.
• In 1966, Pedro executed affidavit of
possession or occupancy, because of which
he was issued tax declarations.

Court
• For more than 30 years, neither Guaranteed Homes, Inc and the
government of Paranaque (as donee) sought to register the accreted
portion.
 CONCLUSION
❖Ebios are the rightful owners of the accreted land.
• Art. 84 of the Spanish Law of Waters negates mayor of Paranaque’s theory that the accreted
land is of public domain.
• Art. 84 of the Spanish Law of Waters is clear: Accretions deposited gradually upon lands
contiguous to creeks...belong to the owners of such lands.
• Hence, the accreted land initially belonged to Guaranteed Homes, Inc. as the owner of the
adjoining land (Road Lot No. 8).
• But Guaranteed Homes, Inc. (or Paranaque government as donee) did not register the
accreted land under the Torrens System. As held in Grande v CA, without title, the accreted
land can be the subject of acquisition by prescription.
• Thus, Pedro Vitalez, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Ebios, acquired the land
by prescription since it was proven that he was in possession of the land for more than 30
years pursuant to Art. 1137, NCC.
• The fact that title was not obtained by Pedro does not affect his ownership over the land
because as held in Republic v CA, registration merely “confirms, but does not confer
ownership.”