Case Summary (G.R. No. L-61647)
Factual Findings
Originally twelve hectares of fishpond lay between two rivers. Respondents claimed gradual sedimentation added 33,937 m2 (Lot 1) and 5,453 m2 (Lot 2). Their sole witness, an overseer, testified she first saw dry land at the lots’ level in 1939, and that in 1951 respondents relocated a dike (“pilapil”) using soil from an older dike. The fishpond remains two meters deep at the pilapil side. Surveys in 1940 and 1958–60 did not include these parcels.
Issue Presented
Whether Lots 1 and 2 are natural accretions entitled to private ownership under Article 457, or artificial reclamations belonging to the public domain.
Rulings Below
Court of First Instance: Held that gradual deposit by river currents created Lots 1 and 2; ordered registration in respondents’ names.
Court of Appeals: Affirmed in toto, finding no error in factual determination or legal application.
Supreme Court Analysis on Accretion
- Binding Effect of Findings: Recognizes that factual findings below are conclusive unless based on speculation, misapprehension, or grave abuse of discretion.
- Elements of Natural Accretion (Art. 457): Must be (a) gradual and imperceptible; (b) caused solely by river currents; (c) on land adjacent to the riverbank. Artificial deposits are excluded.
- Evidence Shortcomings:
• The supposed “accretion” appeared suddenly in 1939—too late for imperceptible growth.
• Relocation of the dike in 1951 was deliberate reclamation, not natural sedimentation.
• The parcels lie under two meters of water, inconsistent with dry, natural accretion.
• Absence from cadastral surveys and tax declarations until 1972 undermines claim of long-standing natural formation. - Purpose of Accretion Rule: Compensate the riparian owner for natural river hazards, not to reward artificial expansion. Deposits from reclamation works are excluded.
Classification
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-61647)
Facts
- Respondents Benjamin Tancinco, Azucena Tancinco Reyes, Marina (should be “Maria”) Tancinco Imperial and Mario C. Tancinco own a fishpond property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-89709 in Barrio Ubihan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, bordering the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers.
- On June 24, 1973, they applied for registration of three adjacent lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Plan PSU-131892), claiming they were accretions to their fishpond.
- Lot 1 measured 33,937 sq. m., Lot 2 measured 5,453 sq. m., and Lot 3 measured 1,985 sq. m., each described by metes and bounds.
- On April 5, 1974, the Bureau of Lands, through the Assistant Provincial Fiscal, filed opposition.
- On March 6–7, 1975, respondents withdrew Lot 3; the trial proceeded on Lots 1 and 2 only.
Procedural History
- June 26, 1976: The Court of First Instance of Bulacan granted registration of Lots 1 and 2 as accretions to TCT No. 89709, ordering issuance of titles in favor of respondents.
- July 30, 1976: The Republic of the Philippines (Director of Lands) appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- August 19, 1982: The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in toto (“sinasangayunan at pinagtitibay”).
- October 12, 1984: The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari to review factual findings and legal conclusions.
Issue
- Whether the addition of land (Lots 1 and 2) to the fishpond properties constitutes natural accretion under Article 457, New Civil Code, or an artificial, human-made reclamation not covered by the Land Registrat