Case Digest (G.R. No. 6610)
Facts:
Eleuteria Villanueva et al. v. Valeriano Claustro, G.R. No. 6610. August 24, 1912, the Supreme Court, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.The plaintiffs (successors in interest of Mariano Villanueva) sued Valeriano Claustro for ownership or possession of a roughly 13-are tract that had formerly been the bed of the river running between Vigan and Bantay but had become dry after the river changed course. An initial defendant, Victoriana de la Cruz, recognized the plaintiffs' ownership and was dropped from the action; the case proceeded against Claustro alone.
Claustro answered (March 21, 1910) asserting a special defense of possession for twenty years, publicly and peacefully. His witnesses (including his wife, Isabel Rivera) testified that the disputed land had been the abandoned riverbed for about thirty years, that they cleared and occupied it, and that they considered themselves owners because they had cleared and built on it. One witness recounted successive washings of their house during freshets, and another indicated that the Villanueva lot lay to the south.
The record also showed a prior complaint by Claustro (May 11, 1905) against a third party asserting ten years' possession, which, when measured to March 1910, supported only about fifteen years' possession. The plaintiffs established (1) their succession from Mariano Villanueva and (2) that Mariano Villanueva was the recognized owner of the riparian property that, at acquisition (December 2, 1868), was bounded on the north by the river now with course shifted northward, leaving the disputed land dry.
The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur found for...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does an abandoned river bed, left by a natural change in a river's course, belong to the owner of the adjacent riparian land?
- Can the defendant acquire ownership of the abandoned river bed by prescription based on his alleged possession?
- Does the ten-year prescription under section 41 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) afford the defendant title arisin...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)