Title
Agustin vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 66075-76
Decision Date
Jul 5, 1990
Cagayan River's gradual accretion shifted lands, leading to a dispute over ownership. SC upheld private respondents' claim under Article 457, ruling accretion gradual and imperceptible.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 66075-76)

Facts:

Geographical Context and Historical Background

  • The Cagayan River separates the towns of Solana (west) and Tuguegarao (east) in Cagayan province.
  • In 1919, lands east of the river were covered by the Tuguegarao Cadastre.
  • In 1925, Original Certificate of Title No. 5472 was issued to Eulogio Agustin for land east of the Cagayan River.
  • Over time, the Cagayan River shifted eastward, depositing silt on the western bank, leading to gradual accretion.

Private Respondents' Possession and Ownership

  • In 1950, lands west of the river were included in the Solana Cadastre.
  • Pablo Binayug occupied several lots (Lots 3349, 7876, etc.) since 1947, planting tobacco and corn on 8 hectares, with 12 hectares overgrown with talahib.
  • Binayug's Homestead Application No. W-79055 was approved in 1959.
  • Maria Melad owned Lot 3351, with her predecessor-in-interest, Macario Melad, issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-5026 in 1956.

River Erosion and Accretion

  • The Cagayan River eroded lands on the eastern bank, including Eulogio Agustin's Lot 8457, depositing alluvium on Binayug's land on the western bank.
  • In 1968, a flood caused the river to revert to its 1919 bed, transferring Melad and Binayug's lands to the eastern (Tuguegarao) side.

Dispute and Legal Actions

  • In April 1969, petitioners, led by Eulogio Agustin, claimed the lands and drove away private respondents.
  • In 1970, Maria Melad and Timoteo Melad filed Civil Case No. 343-T to recover Lot 3351 and its accretion.
  • Pablo Binayug filed Civil Case No. 344-T to recover his lots and accretions.
  • The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate the lands and restore possession.

Appeal and Intermediate Appellate Court Decision

  • Eulogio Agustin appealed in Civil Case No. 343-T, while Agustin, Baldomero Cagurangan, Arturo Balisi, and Juan Langcay appealed in Civil Case No. 344-T.
  • The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision in 1983.

Issue:

  1. Whether the accretion to private respondents' lands belongs to them under Article 457 of the New Civil Code.
  2. Whether the sudden change in the river's course affects private respondents' ownership of the accreted lands.
  3. Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in affirming the trial court's decision.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Intermediate Appellate Court's decision. The Court held:

  1. The accretion to private respondents' lands belongs to them under Article 457 of the New Civil Code, as the deposit was gradual, imperceptible, and resulted from the river's current.
  2. The sudden change in the river's course in 1968 did not affect private respondents' ownership of the accreted lands, as Articles 459 and 463 of the New Civil Code apply.
  3. The findings of the Intermediate Appellate Court, supported by evidence and the law, are conclusive.

Ratio:

  1. Accretion under Article 457: Accretion benefits riparian owners if the deposit is gradual, imperceptible, and results from the river's current. These requisites were met in this case.
  2. Ownership of Accreted Lands: The private respondents retained ownership of the accreted lands even after the river's sudden change of course, as the accretion was gradual and imperceptible over 49 years.
  3. Avulsion under Articles 459 and 463: The sudden change in the river's course (avulsion) did not transfer ownership of the accreted lands to the petitioners. The private respondents retained ownership of the lands transferred to the eastern bank.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the private respondents' ownership of the accreted lands, ruling that the gradual and imperceptible nature of the accretion, coupled with the application of Articles 457, 459, and 463 of the New Civil Code, justified their claim. The petition was denied for lack of merit.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.