Title
Republic vs. Tongson, Sr.
Case
G.R. No. 233304
Decision Date
Jul 28, 2020
Norma Limsiaco claimed land formed by river accretion; Supreme Court ruled insufficient evidence, overturning lower courts' approval of registration.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233304)

Background and Subject Property

The respondents are registered owners of adjoining parcels of land in Barangay Talaban, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-135049 and T-144637. Norma Limsiaco is the registered owner of one lot, and their children own the adjoining lot. The subject of the land registration case is an adjacent parcel of approximately 10,142 square meters described by an approved technical survey (Psu-06-001615), purportedly formed by accretion (alluvial deposits) from the natural current of the Aguisan River lying along the west side of their combined properties. The respondents claimed that this land incrementally emerged through gradual deposits and sought registration of this parcel in their names.

Procedural History

Respondents filed a petition for land registration asserting that the subject land came into existence by accretion—a natural extension of their titled properties. The City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of Kabankalan City and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Iloilo City issued certifications acknowledging the land survey and that the land was not covered by any public land patent or title application. No opposition or answer was filed by the OSG, despite its appearance in the case. After a period allowing for opposition passed without any manifestation, the RTC of Himamaylan City ruled in favor of respondents and approved registration in their names. The RTC amended the decision to correct a typographical error in the petitioner’s name. The OSG appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC ruling. The OSG then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

The OSG contended that:

  1. The CENRO certification alone is not sufficient prima facie evidence to prove that the subject land resulted from accretion;
  2. The size of the land subject to registration (over 10,000 square meters) makes it highly improbable that the addition was the result of a gradual and imperceptible accretion, as required by law.

Legal Framework for Accretion

Under Article 457 of the Civil Code, the accretion of land adjoining a riverbank is automatically acquired by the riparian owner provided three conditions are established:

  1. The deposit must be gradual and imperceptible;
  2. It must result from the natural current of water; and
  3. The land where the accretion takes place must be adjacent to the bank of the river.

The court emphasized that accretion confers ownership rights naturally to the riparian owner, yet these rights must be judicially recognized under the Land Registration Act. Registration of ownership by accretion requires proof satisfying these requisites.

Evidence and Findings of the Lower Courts

The RTC and Court of Appeals gave significant weight to the certifications issued by CENRO and DENR as confirming that the subject land is an alluvium formed by accretion of the Aguisan River. They accepted these administrative findings, combined with Ernesto, Sr.'s testimony regarding family inheritance of the surrounding lots and tax payments for the subject land, as adequate to satisfy the requisites for accretion. The CA invoked the doctrine that administrative agencies with jurisdiction and expertise possess findings accorded respect and presumed probative value.

Supreme Court Analysis on Evidence

The Supreme Court found that the respondents failed to adequately substantiate their claim that the subject land arose by accretion, particularly noting that:

  • Ernesto, Sr. was not a competent witness to testify on the scientific facts necessary to conclude land accretion, such as gradual soil deposits or riverbank changes over multiple generations;
  • The CENRO and DENR certifications cannot stand alone as prima facie proof of the facts stated therein; such documents are only prima facie evidence of their due execution and issuance, not of the underlying land formation facts;
  • The competent officers or experts who prepared or authorized these certifications should have testified or other competent evidence should have been presented;
  • The testimony of Ernesto, Sr. was limited to family history and personal observations starting from 1990, which is insufficient considering the historical and scientific nature of proving gradual accretion;
  • The lack of opposition or contest from other parties does not relieve the respondents from presenting sufficient evidence; land registration requires cogent proof in the face of the legal requisites and existing jurisprudence.

On the Size of the Accrued Land

The Court declined to reject the claim of gradual accretion based solely on the size of the parcel (10,142 square meters), especially when considered in the context of respondents' larger adjoining properties. The Court observed that while the area may appear large, a gradual accretion process over an extended period remains plausible and must be determined through expert eva

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms