G.R. No. 152115 - Usero vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152115)

Procedural history and parties’ pleadings

Plaintiffs instituted Civil Case No. 9660 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (recovery of possession, damages). Defendant Ricardo Ladrido answered with a counterclaim; the complaint was later amended to implead Rosendo H. Te and to seek annulment of the deed of sale and restitution of the purchase price should defendants’ possession be sustained. Plaintiffs later became sole registered owner when Celso sold his rights to Angelica. After Ricardo’s death, his wife and children were substituted as defendants.

Agreed facts established at pre-trial

The parties admitted several material facts: the parcel formerly Lot No. 7340 was located in barangay Guibuanogan and measured 20,089 sq. m.; the 1926 cadastral survey showed Lots 7511 and 7340 separated by the Suague River; defendants had possessed 11,819 sq. m. of former Lot No. 7340; 14,036 sq. m. corresponding to the former river bed per 1926 survey had also been in defendants’ possession; and the plaintiffs had never been in actual physical possession of Lot No. 7340.

Issues presented for resolution

The plaintiffs framed the principal issues: (1) whether the change in the course of the Suague River was sudden (avulsion) as they claimed or gradual (accretion) as defendants contended; (2) if gradual, whether plaintiffs were still entitled to Lot “B” and to one-half of Lot “A” shown in the sketch plan (Exhibit 4); and (3) entitlement to damages.

Trial court findings and disposition

After trial and the admission of a second amended complaint including damages, the trial court resolved the factual dispute in favor of defendants, finding gradual accretion occurred over many years on the eastern side of Lot No. 7511. The court declared defendants owners of the parcels identified as Lots A and B in the sketches (aggregating 25,855 sq. m., more or less), awarded them possession, dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with costs, and denied defendants’ claims for moral damages and attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals’ ruling and legal basis

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. It relied on Article 457 of the New Civil Code: “To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.” The Court applied the presumption that changes in a river’s course are gradual (i.e., accretion) absent clear and convincing proof of avulsion, citing prior decisions (Martinez Canas v. Tuason; Payatas Estate Improvement Co. v. Tuason; C.H. Hodges v. Garcia). The appellate court accepted the trial court’s factual findings that accretion resulted in Lots A and B (14,036 sq. m. and 11,819 sq. m., respectively) being added to Lot No. 7511 and that these areas had been cultivated and possessed by defendants’ tenants, with the former river bed no longer discernible. Because the accretion belonged to the riparian owner (defendants), the appellate court found no error in the lower court’s declaration of ownership and possession and declined to disturb the factual finding.

Petitioners’ principal contentions on certiorari

Before the Supreme Court, petitioners contended: (1) the pivotal issue of whether the river change was sudden or gradual had been abandoned on appeal and therefore the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to decide that unraised issue; and (2) Article 457 of the New Civil Code must be read with Sections 45 and 46 of Act No. 496 so that accretion could not defeat a Torrens registered owner’s title — i.e., registration should protect registered land against accretion claims by adjacent owners.

Supreme Court’s analysis on the abandonment-of-issue argument

The Supreme Court rejected the procedural contention that the Court of Appeals decided an issue that had been abandoned on appeal. It recognized that the issue of whether the river’s change was avulsive or gradual was the pivotal factual question resolved by the trial court and therefore appropriately reviewable by the appellate court. The Court explained that an appellant’s failure to press every issue on appeal does not render the appellate court’s review and affirmation of the trial court’s findings void; the petitioners had been heard in the trial court on that factual issue and cannot assert that the proceedings below were irregular such that the appellate affirmation would be extra-judicial. The Supreme Court found no valid basis to declare the Court of Appeals’ ruling void on that ground.

Supreme Court’s application of law on accretion and Torrens titles

The Supreme Court reaffirmed established jurisprudence that accretion belongs to the owners of lands adjoining a riverbank under Article 457 (formerly Art

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152115)

Procedural Posture

Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 29, 1986 in CA-G.R. CV No. 69942, which affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Iloilo dated December 10, 1981.
Trial court case: Civil Case No. 9660, Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
Key appellate dates and identifiers: G.R. No. 77294; Supreme Court decision dated December 12, 1988; Court of Appeals decision dated December 29, 1986; trial court decision dated December 10, 1981.
Judgment below: Trial court ruled for defendants; Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioners (Angelica F. Viajar and Celso F. Viajar) sought review before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Parties and Titles

Plaintiffs-Appellants: Angelica F. Viajar and Celso F. Viajar (Celso later conveyed his rights to Angelica, making her the sole registered owner of Lot No. 7340).
Defendants-Appellees: Initially Ricardo Y. Ladrido (later deceased) and, after his death on May 25, 1978, substituted by his wife Leonor P. Ladrido and children Lourdes Ladrido-Ignacio, Eugenio P. Ladrido and Manuel P. Ladrido.
Other parties impleaded: Rosendo H. Te and Ana Te (Rosendo sold Lot No. 7340 to the Viajars on September 6, 1973 for P5,000).
Titles and registration:
- Spouses Ricardo Y. Ladrido and Leonor P. Ladrido were registered owners of Lot No. 7511 under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-21940, containing an area of 154,267 square meters.
- Spouses Rosendo H. Te and Ana Te were registered owners of Lot No. 7340 per their title; Lot No. 7340 was sold to Angelica and Celso Viajar and a Torrens title was later issued to them.

Antecedent Facts and Transactions

On September 6, 1973 Rosendo H. Te, with the conformity of Ana Te, sold Lot No. 7340 to Angelica F. Viajar and Celso F. Viajar for P5,000; a Torrens title was later issued in the Viajars’ names.
Angelica F. Viajar had Lot No. 7340 relocated and discovered the property was in possession of Ricardo Y. Ladrido; Ladrido refused to return possession.
On February 15, 1974, Angelica and Celso Viajar instituted a civil action for recovery of possession and damages against Ricardo Y. Ladrido (Civil Case No. 9660).
The complaint was later amended to implead Rosendo H. Te and to seek annulment of the deed of sale and restitution of purchase price with interest if possession of defendant Ladrido was sustained.
Defendant Te filed an answer and counterclaimed for damages; plaintiffs answered the counterclaim.
During the pendency of the case Celso sold his rights in Lot No. 7340 to Angelica; Celso’s disposition left Angelica effectively the sole registered owner of Lot No. 7340.
Defendant Ricardo Y. Ladrido died May 25, 1978 and was substituted by his wife and children as defendants.

Property Descriptions, Cadastral and River Course Details

Lot No. 7511 (registered in names of Ricardo and Leonor Ladrido): area 154,267 square meters; eastern boundary per cadastral plan was the Suague River.
Lot No. 7340 (initially registered to Te spouses, sold to Viajars): area 20,089 square meters; located in barangay Guibuanogan, Pototan, Iloilo.
Cadastral survey year referenced: 1926. At that time Lot No. 7511 and Lot No. 7340 were separated by the Suague River.
Accretion and areas in possession of defendants (as found in evidence and pre-trial admissions):
- Lot A (former river bed): area 14,036 square meters.
- Lot B (part of former Lot No. 7340): area 11,819 square meters.
- Lot C (not involved in litigation): area 4,057 square meters.
- Aggregate accretion/alluvial deposit by 1979: 29,912 square meters (2.9912 hectares), more or less.
Pre-trial admitted facts included:
- The piece formerly Lot No. 7340 was located in barangay Guibuanogan, Pototan, Iloilo and consisted of 20,089 square meters.
- At time of cadastral survey in 1926, Lots 7511 and 7340 were separated by Suague River.
- Area of 11,819 square meters of former Lot 7340 has been in possession of defendants.
- Area of 14,036 square meters, formerly the river bed per cadastral survey of 1926, has been in possession of defendants.
- Plaintiffs have never been in actual physical possession of Lot No. 7340.

Issues Presented for Resolution

Whether the change in the course of the Suague River was sudden (avulsion) as claimed by plaintiffs or gradual (accretion) as contended by defendants.
Assuming arguendo the change was gradual, whether plaintiffs were nevertheless entitled to Lot B appearing in Exhibit "4" and to one-half (1/2) of Lot A indicated in Exhibit "4".
Whether plaintiffs were entitled to damages.

Trial Court Findings and Disposition (Court of First Instance, Dec. 10, 1981)

After trial on the merits and admission of a second amended complaint including damages, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, with the dispositive portion:
- Dismissal of the complaint of plaintiffs Angelica F. Viajar and Celso F. Viajar with costs against them.
- Declaration that defendants Leonor P. Ladrido, Lourdes Ladrido-Ignacio, Eugenio P. Ladrido and Manuel P. Ladrido are owners of the parcel indicated as Lots A and B in the sketch plans (Exhibits 'C', '4', '4-B', '4-C') situated in barangays Cawayan and Guibuanogan, Pototan, Iloilo, containing an area of 25,855 square meters, more or less.
- Pronouncement that, as owners of the described land, the defendants are