100% found this document useful (2 votes)
1K views2 pages

Rep Vs CA GR No L-61647 - Digest

G.R. No. L-61647 October 12, 1984 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIRECTOR OF LANDS), petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BENJAMIN TANCINCO, AZUCENA TANCINCO REYES, MARINA TANCINCO IMPERIAL and MARIO C. TANCINCO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (2 votes)
1K views2 pages

Rep Vs CA GR No L-61647 - Digest

G.R. No. L-61647 October 12, 1984 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIRECTOR OF LANDS), petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BENJAMIN TANCINCO, AZUCENA TANCINCO REYES, MARINA TANCINCO IMPERIAL and MARIO C. TANCINCO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

REPUBLIC vs. CA G.R. No.

L-61647 October 12, 1984


FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals.
Respondents Benjamin Tancinco, Azucena Tancinco Reyes, Marina (should be "Maria") Tancinco Imperial and Mario C.
Tancinco are registered owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-89709 situated at Barrio
Ubihan, Meycauayan, Bulacan bordering on the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers.
On June 24, 1973, the private respondents filed an application for the registration of three lots adjacent to their fishpond
property. On April 5, 1974, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Amando C. Vicente, in representation of the Bureau of Lands filed a
written opposition to the application for registration.
On March 6, 1975, the private respondents filed a partial withdrawal of the application for registration with respect to Lot 3
of Plan Psu-131892 in line with the recommendation of the Commissioner appointed by the Court. On March 7, 1975, Lot
3 was ordered withdrawn from the application and trial proceeded only with respect to Lots 1 and 2 covered by Plan Psu131892. On June 26, 1976, the lower court rendered a decision granting the application on the finding that the lands in
question are accretions to the private respondents' fishponds covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 89709.
On July 30, 1976, the petitioner Republic appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals. On August, 19, 1982, the
respondent Court rendered a decision affirming in toto the decision of the lower court. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads: DAHIL DITO, ang hatol na iniakyat ay sinasangayunan at pinagtitibay sa kanyang kabuuan nang walang
bayad.

The petitioner submits that there is no accretion to speak of under Article 457 of the New Civil Code because what
actually happened is that the private respondents simply transferred their dikes further down the river bed of the
Meycauayan River, and thus, if there is any accretion to speak of, it is man-made and artificial and not the result of the
gradual and imperceptible sedimentation by the waters of the river.

On the other hand, the private respondents rely on the testimony of Mrs. Virginia Acua to the effect that:
... when witness first saw the land, namely, Lots 1 & 2, they were already dry almost at the level of the
Pilapil of the property of Dr. Tancinco, and that from the boundaries of the lots, for about two (2) arms
length the land was still dry up to the edge of the river; that sometime in 1951, a new Pilapil was
established on the boundaries of Lots 1 & 2 and soil from the old Pilapil was transferred to the new Pilapil
and this was done sometime in 1951; that the new lots were then converted into fishpond, and water in
this fishpond was two (2) meters deep on the side of the Pilapil facing the fishpond ... .

The private respondents submit that the foregoing evidence establishes the fact of accretion without human intervention
because the transfer of the dike occurred after the accretion was complete.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subject land is registrable as an accretion.

RULE:
We agree with the petitioner. Article 457 of the New Civil Code requires the concurrence of three requisites before an
accretion covered by this particular provision is said to have taken place. They are (1) that the deposit be gradual and
imperceptible; (2) that it be made through the effects of the current of the water; and (3) that the land where accretion
takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers. The requirement that the deposit should be due to the effect of the current of

the river is indispensable. This excludes from Art. 457 of the New Civil Code all deposits caused by human intervention.
Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature. In the instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the
addition to the said property was made gradually through the effects of the current of the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers.

There is evidence that the alleged alluvial deposits were artificial and man-made and not the exclusive result of the
current of the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers. The alleged alluvial deposits came into being not because of the sole effect
of the current of the rivers but as a result of the transfer of the dike towards the river and encroaching upon it. The land
sought to be registered is not even dry land cast imperceptibly and gradually by the river's current on the fishpond
adjoining it. It is under two meters of water.

The reason behind the law giving the riparian owner the right to any land or alluvion deposited by a river is to compensate
him for the danger of loss that he suffers because of the location of his land.

The instant petition is GRANTED. The decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The private
respondents are ordered to move back the dikes of their fishponds to their original location and return the disputed
property to the river to which it belongs.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy