Scribd
Upload
79 views2 pages

Bagaipo Vs CA

This case involves a land dispute between Dionisia Bagaipo and Leonor Lozano over property located along the Davao River in the Philippines. Bagaipo claims that a change in the river's course caused her property to be divided into three lots and that one of the new lots belongs to her, not Lozano. However, both the trial court and appellate court found that the change was caused by erosion, not avulsion or a sudden change in the river's course. The land received by Lozano was due to gradual and imperceptible accretion from soil deposited by the river, making it rightfully Lozano's property under Philippine law. The court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that B

Uploaded by

Jay Gahapon
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
79 views2 pages

Bagaipo Vs CA

This case involves a land dispute between Dionisia Bagaipo and Leonor Lozano over property located along the Davao River in the Philippines. Bagaipo claims that a change in the river's course caused her property to be divided into three lots and that one of the new lots belongs to her, not Lozano. However, both the trial court and appellate court found that the change was caused by erosion, not avulsion or a sudden change in the river's course. The land received by Lozano was due to gradual and imperceptible accretion from soil deposited by the river, making it rightfully Lozano's property under Philippine law. The court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that B

Uploaded by

Jay Gahapon
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

BAGAIPO VS.

COURT OF APPEALS:

FACTS:

Petitioner Dionisia P. Bagaipo is the registered owner of Lot which located southeast of Davao
River.While respondent Leonor Lozano is the owner of a registered parcel of land located across
and opposite thesoutheast portion of petitioner’s lot facing the Davao River.

On May 26, 1989, Bagaipo filed a complaintfor Recovery of Possession with Mandatory
Writ of PreliminaryInjunction and Damages against Lozano for:

(1) The surrender of possession by Lozano of a certain portion of landmeasuring 29,162 square
meters which is supposedly included in the area belonging to Bagaipo under TCT No. T-15757;
and
(2) The recovery of a land area measuring 37,901 square meters which Bagaipo allegedly lost
when theDavao River traversed her property.

Bagaipo contended that as a result of a change in course of the said river, herproperty became
divided into three lots, namely: Lots 415-A, 415-B and 415-C.In January 1988,Bagaipo
commissioned a resurvey of Lot 415 and presented before the trial court a surveyplanprepared
by Geodetic Engineer Gersacio A. Magno which concluded that the land presently located
acrossthe river and parallel to Bagaipo’s property still belonged to the latter and not to
Lozano,who planted some 350fruit-bearing trees on Lot 415-C and the old abandoned river
bed.

ISSUE:

: Wether or not there was a change in the river’s course which resulted to avulsion?

HELD:

NO.

The trial court and the appellate court both found that the decrease in land area was brought
about by erosion and not a change in the river’s course. This conclusion was reached after the
trial judge observed during ocular inspection that the banks located on petitioner’s land are
sharp, craggy and very much higher than the land on the other side of the river. Additionally, the
riverbank on respondent’s side is lower and gently sloping. The lower land therefore naturally
received the alluvial soil carried by the river current.

These findings are factual, thus conclusive on this Court, unless there are strong and exceptional
reasons, or they are unsupported by the evidence on record, or the judgment itself is based on a
misapprehension of facts. The decrease in petitioner’s land area and the corresponding
expansion of respondent’s property were the combined effect of erosion and accretion
respectively. Art. 461 of the Civil Code are inapplicable. Petitioner cannot claim ownership over
the old abandoned riverbed because the same is inexistent. The riverbed’s former location
cannot even be pinpointed with particularity since the movement of the Davao River took place
gradually over an unspecified period of time, up to the present. The rule is well-settled that
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 the river.

These requisites were sufficiently proven in favor of respondents. In the absence of evidence
that the change in the course of the river was sudden or that it occurred through avulsion, the
presumption is that the change was gradual and was caused by alluvium and erosion. Occurred
through avulsion, the presumption is that the change was gradual and was caused by alluvium
and erosion.

In the absence of evidence that the change in the course of the river was sudden or that it for
his part, Lozano insisted that the land claimed by Bagaipo is actually an accretion
to their titled property. He asserted that the Davao River did not change its course and that
the reduction in Bagaipo’s domain was caused by gradual erosion due to the current of the
Davao River. Lozano added that it is also because of the river’s natural action that silt slowly
deposited and added to his land over a long period of time. He further averred that this
accretion continues up to the present and that registration proceedings instituted by him over
the alluvial formation could not be concluded precisely because it continued to increase in size.

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