Binalay v. Manalo, G.R. No. 92161, March 18, 1991

Facts:

Respondent Guillermo Manalo acquired 8.65 hectares thereof from Faustina Taccad, daughter of Judge Juan Taccad. He then purchased another 1.80 hectares from Gregorio Taguba who had earlier acquired the same from Judge Juan Taccad. The two (2) parcels of land belonging to respondent Manalo were surveyed and consolidated into one lot, designated as Lot No. 307, Pls-964. Lot 307 which contains 4.6489 hectares includes: (a) the whole of the 1.80 hectares acquired from Gregorio Taguba; and (b) 2.8489 hectares out of the 8.65 hectares purchased from Faustina Taccad. As the survey was conducted on a rainy month, a portion of the land bought from Faustina Taccad then under water was left unsurveyed and was not included in Lot 307. The Sketch Plan submitted during the trial of this case and which was identified by respondent Manalo shows that the Cagayan River running from south to north, forks at a certain point to form two (2) branches—the western and the eastern branches—and then unites at the other end, further north, to form a narrow strip of land. The eastern branch of the river cuts through the land of respondent Manalo and is inundated with water only during the rainy season. The bed of the eastern branch is the submerged or the unsurveyed portion of the land belonging to respondent Manalo. For about eight (8) months of the year when the level of water at the point where the Cagayan River forks is at its ordinary depth, river water does not flow into the eastern branch. While this condition persists, the eastern bed is dry and is susceptible to cultivation. 

There is this Lot 821 which is located directly opposite Lot 307 and is separated from the latter only by the eastern branch of the Cagayan River during the rainy season and, during the dry season, by the exposed, dry river bed, being a portion of the land bought from Faustina Taccad. Respondent Manalo claims that Lot 821 also belongs to him by way of accretion to the submerged portion of the property to which it is adjacent. 

Petitioners who are in possession of Lot 821, upon the other hand, insist that they own Lot 821. They occupy the outer edges of Lot 821 along the river banks, i.e., the fertile portions on which they plant tobacco and other agricultural products.

On 24 July 1974, respondent Manalo filed a complaints before the then Court of First Instance of Isabela, Branch 3 for quieting of title, possession and damages against petitioners. He alleged ownership of the two (2) parcels of land he bought separately from Faustina Taccad and Gregorio Taguba for which reason he prayed that judgment be entered ordering petitioners to vacate the western strip of the unsurveyed portion. Respondent Manalo likewise prayed that judgment be entered declaring him as owner of Lot 821 on which he had laid his claim during the survey.

CFI Ruling;

CFI renders judgment against the defendants(petitioners) and in favor of the plaintiff(respondent).

CA Ruling:

Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Issue:

WON Manolo own Lot 821 by way of accretion to the submerged portion of the property to which it is adjacent? 

Ruling:

No, Manolo does not own Lot 821 by way of accretion to the submerged portion of the property to which it is adjacent

Article 420 of the Civil Code states:

The following things are property of public dominion:

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457 of the Civil Code requires the concurrence of three (3) requisites: (a) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (b) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and (c) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers (or the sea coast).

Pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Code, respondent Manalo did not acquire private ownership of the bed of the eastern branch of the river even if it was included in the deeds of absolute sale executed by Gregorio Taguba and Faustina Taccad in his favor. These vendors could not have validly sold land that constituted property of public dominion. The Court considers that there was no evidence to prove that Lot 821 is an increment to Lot 307 and the bed of the eastern branch of the river. As it is, the claimed accretion (Lot 821) lies on the bank of the river not adjacent to Lot 307 but directly opposite Lot 307 across the river.

Hence, Manolo does not own Lot 821 by way of accretion to the submerged portion of the property to which it is adjacent.

Overall SC Ruling:

1. Respondent Manalo is hereby declared the owner of Lot 307.
2. The regularly submerged portion or the eastern bed of the Cagayan River is hereby DECLARED to be property of public dominion.
3. The ownership of Lot 821 shall be determined in an appropriate action that may be instituted by the interested parties inter se. If respondent Manalo had proved prior possession, it was limited physically to Lot 307 and the depressed portion or the eastern river bed. The testimony of Dominga Malana who was a tenant for Justina Taccad did not indicate that she was also cultivating Lot 821. The tax declarations presented by petitioners conflict with those of respondent Manalo. The evidence of record on this point is less than satisfactory and the Court feels compelled to refrain from determining the ownership and possession of Lot 821, adjudging neither petitioners nor respondent Manalo as owner(s) thereof.