Accession Natural

AMDG
Reynante v. C.A.
207 SCRA 794

DOCTRINE: Granting that the lots were created by alluvial formation and while it is true that
accretions which the bank of rivers may gradually receive from the effect of the current become
the property of the owner of the banks, such accretion to registered land does not preclude
acquisition of the additional are by another person through prescription

FACTS:
Petitioner, Jose Reynante was a tenant over the two lots of Don Cosme Carlos for more than 50
years. A fishpond is situated between the two lots. During his tenancy, Reynante constructed a
nipa hut, and planted and harvested nipa plams, to which he appropriated it as his own. When
Don Cosme Carlos died, his heirs, private respondents, executed a written agreement with
Reynante wherein the latter would turn over the fishpond to the former. After executing the
agreement, Reynante surrendered the fishponds as well as the lots. The fishpond was leased to
one Carlos de la Cruz. However, Reynante did not vacate the lots and continued to live there
and harvest the nipa palms he planted. The private respondents formally demanded that
Reynante vacate the lots to which the latter refused to do. A forcible entry with preliminary
injunction was filed against Reynante however the trial court dismissed the complaint basing
from the fact that Reynante was the prior possessor of the lots. The trial court’s decision was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:
1. Who between the petitioner and private respondents has prior physical
possession the two lots? -- PETITIONER REYNANTE
2. Whether or not the disputed lots belong to private respondents as a result of
accretion? -- NO

HELD:
It has been held that party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even
against the owner himself. As long as the party is able to prove prior possession he is entitled to
remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected. It is clear from the records that Reynante has
been in possession of the lots for more than 50 years. Consequently, the court cannot legally
grant the possession over the two lots to the private respondents.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the two lots were created by alluvial formation hence under
Article 457 of the New Civil code the ownership of such is granted to the private respondents.
However, although the lands to which the additional areas (which are the two lots subject in this
case) are attached to are registered; the failure to register the additional lands subjected it to
acquisition through prescription. Applying this to the case, the private respondents never
registered the two lots and since Reynante has been in possession of such for more than 50
years already, its possession over it must be respected unless the private respondents are able
to show that they have the better title over it.

Ballatan v. CA
304 SCRA 34
DOCTRINE: In the event that the owner elects to sell to the builder, planter or sower the land
on which the improvement stands, the price must be fixed at the prevailing market value at the
time of payment.

FACTS:
The parties herein are owners of adjacent lots. Lot 24 is registered in the name of petitioners
Ballatan. Lots 25 & 26 are registered in the name of respondent Go Sr. His son, Winston Go
constructed a house on Lot 25. Adjacent to Lot 26 is Lot 27, 4 registered in the name of
respondent Li Ching Yao.

Petitioner Ballatan constructed her house on Lot 24. During the construction, she noticed that
the concrete fence and side pathway of respondent’s house encroached her property. Ballatan
informed Go of this discrepancy and his encroachment on her property. Surveys were made
and it was found out that the lot area of petitioner Ballatan was less by a few meters and that of
respondent Li Ching Yao, which was three lots away, increased by two 2 meters.

Petitioner Ballatan made a written demand on respondents Go to remove and dismantle their
improvements on Lot 24. Respondents Go refused. Hence, Ballatan filed for recovery of
possession of real property. TC decided in favor of petitioners. It ordered the Go's to vacate the
subject portion, demolish their improvements. CA modified: ordered Go to pay Ballatan, and
respondent Li Ching Yao to pay Go and the value to be fixed at the time of the taking.

ISSUE:
WON the value should be fixed at the time of the taking. -- NO

HELD:

All the parties are presumed to have acted in good faith. Their rights must, therefore, be
determined in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Civil Code on property
specifically Art. 448. Petitioners, as owners of Lot 24, may choose to purchase the improvement
made by respondents Go on their land, or sell to respondents Go the subject portion. If buying
the improvement is impractical as it may render the Go's house useless, then petitioners may
sell to respondents Go that portion of Lot 24 on which their improvement stands. If the Go's are
unwilling or unable to buy the lot, then they must vacate the land and, until they vacate, they
must pay rent to petitioners. Petitioners, however, cannot compel respondents Go to buy the
land if its value is considerably more than the portion of their house constructed thereon. If the
value of the land is much more than the Go's improvement, then respondents Go must pay
reasonable rent. If they do not agree on the terms of the lease, then they may go to court to fix
the same.

In the event that petitioners elect to sell to respondents Go the subject portion of their lot, the
price must be fixed at the prevailing market value at the time of payment.