Director of Lands v. CA GR 48265, Jan.

7, 1987 Lands formed by

accretion belong to the riparian owner. Consequently, the Director of
Lands has no jurisdiction over it and any conveyance made by him of
any private land is null and void. [NOTE: Corpus Juris makes
mention of the terms reliction and dereliction, which refer to the land
brought forth by the withdrawal of the water by which it had been
covered. (45 C.J., p. 542).].

3) Essential Requisites of Alluvium (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) The deposit should
be gradual and imperceptible (as a process); Cause is the current of the
river (and not due to works expressly designed for the purpose);
Current must be that of a river (if a lake, the Spanish Law of Waters
must apply; if the sea, the deposit belongs to the State). (Gov’t. of the
Phils. v. Cabangis, 53 Phil. 112). The river must continue to exist
(otherwise, if the river disappears, Art. 461 and not Art. 457 should
apply). (See Pinzon v. Rama, [CA] 2 O.G. No. 3, p. 307). The increase
must be comparatively little, and not, for example, such as would
increase the area of the riparian land by over one hundred fifty per cent.
(De Lasa v. Juan, et al., CA, L-3076-R, May 25, 1950). [NOTE: It is not
necessary, however: 1) 2) that the riparian owner should make an
express act of possession, the accession being automatically his the
moment the soil deposit can be seen. (See Cortez v. City of Manila, 10
Phil. 567; Roxas v. Tuason, 9 Phil. 408; 3 Manresa 236). that the riparian
owner has completely paid for the value of the riparian estate (in case of
purchase), as long as he has already the equitable or beneficial title.
(See Director of Lands, et al. v. Rizal, et al., L-2925, Dec. 29, 1950; 16
Lawyer’s Journal 363). [NOTE: Alluvium, caused by artificial means
is prohibited and penalized, unless made with the authorization of the
Government. (See Com. Act No. 383). If the alluvium is caused by “fi sh
traps” in a river, would this be artificial alluvium? No, unless there was
a deliberate desire to cause alluvium. (Zapata v. Director of Lands, L-
17645, Oct. 30, 1962).].

Reynante v. CA 207 SCRA 794 (1992) Accretion benefits a riparian

owner when the following requisites are present: (1) That the deposit be
gradual and imperceptible; (2) That it resulted from the effects of the
current of the water; and (3) That the land where accretion takes place is
adjacent to the bank of a river. Failure to register the acquired alluvial
deposit by accretion for a period of 50 years subjects said accretion to
acquisition thru prescription by third persons.

4) Reasons Why Alluvium Is Granted the Riparian Owner (a) (b) (c) (d)
to compensate him for the loss he may suffer due to erosion or the
destructive force of the water and danger from floods; to compensate
him because the property is subject to encumbrances and legal
easements (Cortez v. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567; Guison v. City of
Manila, 40 O.G. No. 19, p. 3835); the interests of agriculture require that
the soil be given to the person who is in the best position to cultivate the
same (3 Manresa 231-232); since after all, it cannot be said with certainty
from whom the soil came (indeed, the identification of previous owners
is impossible), it may just as well be logically given to him who can best
utilize the property. (See 2 Navarro Amandi 93; Cortez v. City of
Manila, 10 Phil. 567).

DAYOT:

5) Accretion on the Bank of a Lake Accretions on the bank of a lake, like

Laguna de Bay, belong to the owners of the estate to which they have
been added. (See Gov’t. v. Colegio de San Jose, 53 Phil. 423 which
applied the Spanish Law of Waters).

Republic of the Phils. v. Lat Vda. De Castillo, et al. GR 69002, June 30,
1988 Lakeshore land or lands adjacent to the lake must be differentiated
from foreshore land or that part of the land adjacent to the sea which is
alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary fl ow of the tides. Such
distinction draws importance from the fact that accretions on the bank of
a lake belong to the owners of the estate to which they have been added,
while accretion on a sea bank still belongs to the public domain, and is
not available for private ownership until formally declared by the
government to be no longer needed for public use.

6) Accretion on the Bank of an Island Formed in a Non-navigable River

This accretion also belongs to the owner of the island. (See Banatao v.
Dabbay, 38 Phil. 612).
7) Accretion on a Sea Bank Neither Art. 457 of the Civil Code, nor the
Spanish Law of Waters of Aug. 3, 1866 can apply here because accretion
on a sea bank is neither an accretion on a river bank or a lake bank.
(See Pascual v. Angeles, 13 Phil. 441). Manila Bay is a sea, for a bay is a
part of the sea, being a mere indentation of the same. Thus, accretion
caused by the action of Manila Bay still belongs to the public domain,
and Art. 457 cannot apply. (Faustino Ignacio v. Dir. of Lands and
Laureano, L-12958, May 30, 1960; see also Gov’t. v. Cabangis, 53 Phil.
112; Ker and Co. v. Cauden, 223 U.S. 268).

Effect of Public Service Constructions or Easements on River Banks (a) If

a public service construction, like a railroad or a road, is made on a river
bank, it is evident that the owner of the land can no longer be considered
a riparian owner. Therefore, it is the government or the railroad
company which will own the accretion. (See 3 Manresa 232). Here, the
strip of land used is no longer the property of the former riparian owner.
(b) If instead of a public service construction, there is only an easement
for the benefit of navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage, the right of
the riparian owner to the accretion subsists, because in easements, the
owner of the servient estate does not lose his ownership over the portion
occupied. (See 3 Manresa 233). It is believed that this principle remains
even if under the new Civil Code, the last paragraph of Art. 638 states
that: “If it be necessary for such purpose to occupy land of private
ownership, the proper indemnity shall first be paid.” Payment of the
indemnity does not extinguish ownership over the land. (See for
reference Ayala de Roxas v. City of Manila, 9 Phil. 215).

9) Loss by Alluvium Not Affected by Registration Under the Land

Registration Act In one case, the land owned by a riparian owner, and
covered by a Torrens Title, gradually diminished, while the land on the
opposite bank gradually increased due to the current of the river. It was
alleged by the registered owner that the land added to the opposite side
still remains his by virtue of the Torrens Certificate of Title. Upon the
other hand, the benefited owner countered that no protection was
offered by the Title against alluvium. The Supreme Court rendered
judgment against the registered owner (and in favor of the opposite
owner) on the ground that accretions of the character of alluvium are
natural incidents of land bordering running streams, and are therefore
not affected by registration laws. (Payatas Estate Improvement Co. v.
Tuason, 53 Phil. 55). Indeed, registration does not protect the riparian
owner against the diminution of the area of his land thru gradual
changes in the course of the adjoining stream. (C.N. Hodges v. Garcia,
L-12730, Aug. 22, 1960). It is thus clear that if a portion of land protected
by a Torrens Certificate of Title is lost by alluvium, the registered owner
is NOT protected by the registration: he loses said portion. (Payatas
Estate Improvement Co. v. Tuason, 53 Phil. 65). Upon the other hand,
an alluvial deposit does NOT automatically become registered land
simply because the lot which receives it is covered by a Torrens Title.
Although the owner of the land on which the alluvial deposit is made
becomes automatically the owner of said deposit, the law not requiring
any act of possession on his part from the moment the deposit becomes
manifest, still ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and registration
under the Torrens System of that ownership is quite another. Ownership
over the accretion received is governed by the Civil Code.
Imprescriptibility of registered land is provided in the registration law.
In order that said alluvial property may be entitled to the protection of
imprescriptibility, the same must be placed under the operation of the
Land Registration Law. An unregistered alluvial property is therefore
subject to acquisition through prescription by third persons. (Grande, et
al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., L-17652, June 30, 1962).

10) Subdivision Plan for Land Obtained by Accretion Not Enough to

Make the Land Registered Land Republic v. Heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille
L-39248, May 7, 1976 FACTS: A parcel of land with a Torrens Title was
adjoining a river that eventually dried up. The lot owner claimed that
the dried-up river bed was his by accretion, so he drew up a subdivision
plan that included the river bed. The plan was approved both by the
Land Registration Commission and by the CFI, and two titles were
issued, there being two parcels in the subdivision. State now sues to
have the subsequent title over the river bed cancelled. Can cancellation
be made? HELD: Yes, for to make the former river bed come under the
Torrens System, the ordinary approval of a subdivision plan is not
sufficient; there must be a judicial application for the registration of the
land.

11) Bar Subsequent to the original registration under the Torrens System
of a parcel of land bordering a river, its area was increased by accession.
Having been acquired subsequent to the registration proceedings, the
additional area was NOT INCLUDED in the technical description
appearing on the certificate of title. May such additional area be
acquired by third persons through adverse possession? Why? ANS.:
Yes, for while the additional area automatically became property of the
owner of the original parcel (by accession), still, said area did not
automatically become registered land; hence, the same may be acquired
by prescription. (See Grande, et al)