Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19570)
Facts:
Jose V. Hilario, Jr. v. The City of Manila, G.R. No. L-19570, April 27, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J.P., J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellant Jose V. Hilario, Jr. was the registered owner of a roughly 49-hectare tract in Barrio Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal, inherited from his father and evidenced by T.C.T. No. 14994. The Marikina (San Mateo) River formerly bounded the estate on the west; after a major flood in 1937 the river left its old bed and meandered into the estate, slicing off a lenticular strip of land and establishing a new course with new banks.
In 1945 the U.S. Army established a sand-and-gravel plant on the premises and extracted materials; the U.S. War Department paid a damage claim, and in 1947 operations were taken over by the defendants — the Director of Public Works, the City Engineer of Manila, and engineers Bosuego and Sese — who continued excavations and extractions. On October 22, 1949 plaintiff filed Civil Case No. 959 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal seeking injunction and P5,000 damages to restrain further excavations; defendants answered denying they had taken materials from private land and counterclaimed for injunction.
The Bureau of Mines and Atty. Maximo Calalang intervened: the Bureau asserted the disputed area lay within the riverbed and thus public domain; Calalang claimed authority from plaintiff to extract and sought reimbursement of illegally collected provincial fees. On March 14, 1954 defendants petitioned for an injunction ordering plaintiff and Calalang to remove fences; the trial court maintained the status quo on March 23, 1954, permitting defendants to continue subject to issuing receipts to plaintiff for materials taken. Plaintiff amended his complaint on May 13, 1954, converting it into a damages suit for P1,000,000 against the City of Manila and the Director of Public Works, and added the City, the Provincial Treasurer of Rizal and Engr. Sese as defendants.
After motions and a petition to delimit operations (filed Nov. 3, 1954 and denied May 27, 1955), the trial court on December 21, 1956 rendered judgment awarding plaintiff P376,989.60 as the cost of gravel and sand extracted, enjoining defendants from extracting on the northern two-fifths of the disputed area, and ordering reimbursement of illegally collected fees to intervenor Calalang. Motions for reconsideration were denied (order Aug. 30, 1957; denial of second motion Oct. 21, 1957). Unsatisfied parties appealed; the case was originally directed to the Court of Appeals but that Court certified it to the Supreme Court because the amount involved fell within the Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction, so the case reached the Court on appeal.
Before the Supreme Court the parties presented mixed...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- When a river, leaving its old bed, changes course and opens a new bed through private property, are the new riverbanks part of the public domain?
- Did defendants extract sand and gravel from plaintiff’s private property (entitling plaintiff to recover damages), or were their operations confined ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)