G.R. No. L-48297 - Tuason vs. Court of Appeals

This is an appeal by certiorari reviewing the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 46861-R, which had affirmed in toto the lower court’s ruling in Civil Case No. 1851.
The original action was an attempt to remove clouds over real property with damages and a preliminary injunction.
The dispute centers on the ownership and status of Lot No. 109 as well as a contiguous second parcel of land, both connected to the estate of the late Juan Estevez.

Petitioner Diogenes Tuason – Alleged to have certain rights over the disputed property; later counterclaimed damages and asserted that the land was formed by reclamation rather than by natural accretion.
Respondents (including Isabel Estevez de Tuanqui, the judicial administratrix of the late Juan Estevez’s estate, and the Director of Lands by its Solicitor General) – Asserted that the estate is the rightful owner of Lot No. 109 formed by accretion.
The Director of Lands also intervened, claiming that the property may constitute part of the public domain and that its disposal falls under governmental jurisdiction.

The first parcel – Registered under Act 496 since 1916, with Lot No. 1068-A described in a subdivision plan; improvements included a residential building (later destroyed by Typhoon Trix) with remaining cement footings and a toilet.
The second parcel – Adjacent to the first parcel, with boundaries partly determined by accretion from the Kapantawan River.

The claimant’s possession and improvements were continuous, and the formation of the second parcel was by accretion (alluvial deposits) from the natural action of the river.
The defendant, Diogenes Tuason, purported to assert rights over a portion of the second parcel; even threatening to destroy the plaintiff’s improvements.

The petitioners also alleged that measures taken by Diogenes Tuason, including construction of a building and securing approvals such as a building permit and a sales patent, were acts aimed at usurping the plaintiff’s rights.

The lower court initially dismissed the complaint but later granted a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, including:

Documentary evidence (Exhibits “A” and “B”) showing cadastral plans marking natural boundaries.
Testimonies of witnesses (including government officials and adjoining property owners) confirming that the western boundary of Lot 109 was defined by the Kapantawan River.

The trial court rendered its decision on May 29, 1968, declaring the estate of Juan Estevez as the owner of Lot No. 109, ordering Diogenes Tuason to reconvey the title free from the lien, with additional obligations and costs imposed.
A writ of preliminary injunction had earlier been issued on January 2, 1958, and a writ of execution was later issued but suspended after Tuason filed a petition for relief from judgment.

Both Tuason and the Director of Lands filed separate motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the appellate court.
The issues raised by the petitioners were consolidated into a single appeal, focusing on errors in factual findings and alleged procedural irregularities.

Extensive evidence was presented regarding the existence of the Kapantawan River as a natural boundary.

Ocular inspections, despite being conducted years apart, were supplemented by technical and cadastral survey evidence.
Testimonies of multiple witnesses corroborated that Lot No. 109 was formed by the accretion of alluvial deposits.

The new trial was significant in demonstrating that the formation of the disputed land was not a product of government reclamation but rather a natural process under the influence of the river's current.
Procedural issues involving notices via registered mail and the conduct of counsel were also highlighted in the records.

Whether the trial and appellate courts correctly determined that Lot No. 109 was formed by the natural process of accretion through the action of the Kapantawan River.
Whether Article 457 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which allocates accretions to riparian owners, was properly applied in determining the ownership of Lot No. 109.
Whether the lower court’s resolution of the dispute—despite the defendant’s claims that the land was formed by reclamation and adverse possession—was supported by the evidence.
Whether the defendant’s petition for relief from judgment and the associated procedural claims (notably the issue of failure to claim mail and the alleged excusable negligence of counsel) warrant a reconsideration or reversal of the decision.
Whether the appellate court properly addressed and resolved the assignments of error, including issues of estoppel, waiver of claims, and the classification of the disputed land as part of the public domain.