Reynante vs.

CA
Petition for review on certiorari seeking for reversal of
decision of CA and resolution for denying MR

Appeals could not legally restore private respondents'

possession over lots 1 and 2 simply because petitioner
has clearly proven that he had prior possession over
lots 1 and 2.

Facts:
Reynante was a tenant of Don Cosme Carlos
Don cosme is the owner and father in law of
respondents (Heirs of carlos) of a fishpond located at
Barrio Liputan, Meycauyan, Bulacan.

Occular inspection results:

-A muniment of embedded on the ground separating
fishpond to the nipa palms
-it is beyond the property of the plaintiffs bc it is
situated at the Liputan river- a public domain.

During tenancy, Reynante constructed a nipa hut and

planted nipa palms on lots 1 and 2 located between
the fishpond and Liputan River. He sold this nipa palms
without interference of anybody. Don Cosme does not
even question his (1) right to plant said palms near the
fishpond, (2) harvest them and (3) appropriate them
as his own.

Reynante surrendered the Fishpond and not the

sasahan (nipa palms)

Death of Cosme
-heirs of Don Cosme entered in an agreement with
reynante (Sinumpaang salaysay ng pgsasauli ng
karapatan) 11/29/84
-consideration 200k
-turned over the fishpond and rights as bantay-kasama
at tagapamahala.
-reynante turned over the fishpond and the two huts
therein (leased to dela cruz)
but continued to live in the nipa hut on lots 1 and 2
and take care of the nipa palms.
-02/17/88 respondents demanded that he should
vacate said portion of land becasue he was already
indemnified to surrender rights, but he refused.

Geodetic Engineer:
- Land of Reynante falls within Alienable
Disposable Land (for fishpond development)
- Lots 1 and 2 were created by alluvial formation

Respondents filed forcible entry w/ preliminary

injunction against reynante.
MTC- Dismiss the case.
RTC- In favor of the plaintiff
CA- Affirmed RTC
Issue:
a) Who between the petitioner and private respondents
has prior physical possession of lots 1 and 2
b) Whether or not the disputed lots belong to private
respondents as a result of accretion.
Held:
Issue (a)
(DOCTRINES)
A party who can prove prior possession can recover
such possession even against the owner himself.
Whatever may be the character of his prior possession,
if he has in his favor priority in time, he has the
security that entitles him to remain on the property
until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better
right by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.
On the other hand, if a plaintiff cannot prove prior
physical possession, he has no right of action for
forcible entry and detainer even if he should be the
owner of the property
Reynante is the owner of the lot for 50 years as stated
in the sinumpaang salaysay. Hence, the Court of

Issue (b) MOVABLE PROPERTY

Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks
of rivers belongs the accretion which they gradually
receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
and

(DOCTRINE)
An accretion does not automatically become registered
land just because the lot which receives such accretion
is covered by a Torrens Title. Registration under the
Land Registration and Cadastral Act does not vest or
give title to the land, but merely confirms and,
thereafter, protects the title already possessed by the
owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of third
parties. But to obtain this protection, the land must be
placed under the operation of the registration laws,
wherein certain judicial procedures have been
provided.
Granting without conceding that lots 1 and 2 were
created by alluvial formation and while it is true that
accretions which the banks of rivers may gradually
receive from the effect of the current become the
property of the owner of the banks, such accretion to
registered land does not preclude acquisition of the
additional area by another person through prescription.
Assuming private respondents had acquired the alluvial
deposit (the lot in question), by accretion, still their
failure to register said accretion for a period of fifty
(50) years subjected said accretion to acquisition
through prescription by third persons.
It is undisputed that petitioner has been in possession
of the subject lots for more than fifty (50) years and
unless private respondents can show a better title over
the subject lots, petitioner's possession over the
property must be respected.
DECISION: REVERSED CA AND SET ASIDE,

Cureg vs. IAC

Petition for reversal of Decision of IAC
Facts:
Heirs of Domingo Gerardo (respondents) claims to
have been in actual, open, peaceful and continuous
possession, under a bona fide claim of ownership and
adverse to all other claimants, of a parcel of land in
Cabagan, Isabela called the "motherland. The Gerardo
Heirs later on sold said motherland to apostol. About
that time, there are signs of accretion of about three
(3) hectares on the north caused by the northward
movement of the Cagayan River. Apostol then declared
the motherland and its accretion for tax purpose.

The allegation of private respondents that they were in

possession of the "motherland" through their
predecessors- in-interest had not been proved by
substantial evidence.
The witnesses of Cureg -Geodetic Engineer and
Esteban Guingab, the boundary owner in the east, the
evidence of the denial of preliminary injunction bc the
defendants (petitioners herein) were in actual
possession of the land in litigation prior to September,
1982 by the Trial court CANNOT be defeated by a
BIASED and INTERESTED testimony of Soledad
Gerardo which is used as basis of ownership of
Francisco Gerardo (Heir of Domingo Gerardo) by trial
court and IAC.

In about September to October 1982, when

respondents is about to cultivate the land, they were
threatened by Cureg and Carniyan,s (petitioners) from
continuing claiming they own said parcel of land
registered under Antonio Carniyan, claiming that the
motherland is non-existent -land bounded north of
Cagayan River and the land in question is an accretion
to their registered land, possessing and cultivating of
the "accretion" for many years now.

The foregoing considerations indubitably show that the

alleged "motherland" claimed by private respondents is
nonexistent. The "subject land" is an alluvial deposit
left by the northward movement of the Cagayan River
and pursuant to Article 457 of the New Civil Code:

11/28/68- Carniyan revised his TCT that increased

2,790sqm to 4,584sqm and the boundary on the north
became
Cagayan
River,
purposely
eliminating
completely the original boundary on the north which is
Domingo Gerardo.

The increase in the area of petitioners' land, being an

accretion left by the change of course or the northward
movement of the Cagayan River does not automatically
become registered land just because the lot which
receives such accretion is covered by a Torrens title.

Trial Court- In favor of the plaintiffs

A writ of prelim injunction against petitioners was
denied bc the defendants (petitioners herein) were in
actual possession of the land in litigation prior to
September, 1982
IAC- Affirmed Trial Court

DECISION: REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

To the owners of land adjoining the banks of river

belongs the accretion which they gradually receive
from the effects of the current of the waters.

Issue:
WON petitioners have a better right over the subject
land (w/c consists the motherland and the accretion)
Held:
Motherland +3.5 accretion =subject land.
Petitioners- claim the subject land
Respondents- claim the 3.5 hectares accretion.
Tax declaration of Gerardos, being of an earlier date
cannot defeat an original certificate of title which is of
a later date. Since petitioner's original certificate of
title clearly stated that subject land is bounded on the
north by the Cagayan River, private respondents" claim
over their "motherland," allegedly existing between
petitioners" land and the Cagayan River, is deemed
barred and nullified with the issuance of the original
certificate of title. (It is evidenced with deed of
absolute sale providing that the land of Carniyan is
bounded on the North of Cagayan River.)
(DOCTRINE)
It is an elemental rule that a decree of registration
bars all claims and rights which arose or may have
existed prior to the decree of registration.
Jagualing vs. CA

An action to quite title and remove a cloud over the

property in question
Facts:
A question of ownership over a Parcel of land located
at Misamis Oriental- forming part in a non-navigable
river w/ boundaries of North, South, East -Tagoloan
River and West -belongs to Vicente Neri.
Janita Eduave claims she inherited the land from her
father, Felomino Factura, and in possession of said land
since the latter's death 1949 although tax declaration
remained on his name.
Declared area according to:
- Deed of extrajudicial partition-16452sqm (including
the land underwater because it erroded during typhoon
ineng in 1964, movement deposits in 1966 that
increases half a hectare and 1970 she started to plant
bananas)
- Tax Declaration- 4937sqm
1973-Jagualing asked her permission to plant corns
and bananas in said land provided that they prevent
squatters to come to the area.
The land was the subject of a reconveyance case
between Janita Eduave vs. Heirs of Antonio Factura. In
the amicable settlement the heirs of Antonio Factura
(Jagualing), ceded a portion of the land with an area of
1,289 square meters more or less to Eduave.
Jagualing denied the claim of ownership of Eduave,
and asserted that they are the real owners of the land
in litigation containing an area of 18,000 square
meters more or less and anchored their claim by
adverse possession for about fifteen years. They
presented tax declarations and photos of actual
occupation to prove claim of prescription. But
according to respondent, the possession by petitioners
is only in the concept of caretakers.
Trial
CourtDismissed
complaint
of
Private
Respondent-appellants due to failure to establish
preponderance of evidence and said that the island is a
Public Domain.
CA- Reversed decision of Trial court following Article
463 and 465 of Civil Code.
Issue:
Between the one (Jagualing) who has actual
possession of an island that forms in a non-navigable
and non-floatable river and the owner (Eduave) of the
land along the margin nearest the island, who has the
better right thereto?
Held:
The trial court favored the theory of petitioners that
private respondents became interested in the land only

in 1979 not for agricultural purposes but in order to

extract gravel and sand then belied by other
circumstances tantamount to acts of ownership
exercised by them borne out by the evidence and
testimony of Gregorio Neri.
The property of private respondents actually existed
and was Identified prior to the branching off or division
of the river. The Court of Appeals, therefore, properly
applied Article 463 of the Civil Code which allows the
ownership over a portion of land separated or isolated
by river movement to be retained by the owner thereof
prior to such separation or isolation.
Preponderance of Evidence impact- Not able to
establish the existence and identity of the property
prior to the branching off or division of the Tagoloan
River, and hence, their right over the same, private
respondents are nevertheless entitled under the law to
their respective portion of the island.
(DOCTRINE)
The parcel of land in question is part of an island that
formed in a non-navigable and non-flotable river; from
a small mass of eroded or segregated outcrop of land,
it increased to its present size due to the gradual and
successive accumulation of alluvial deposits. In this
regard the Court of Appeals also did not err in applying
Article 465 of the Civil Code.12 Under this provision,
the island belongs to the owner of the land along the
nearer margin as sole owner thereof; or more
accurately, because the island is longer than the
property of private respondents, they are deemed ipso
jure to be the owners of that portion which
corresponds to the length of their property along the
margin of the river.
Adverse possession claim- It is well-settled that lands
formed by accretion belong to the riparian owner. This
preferential right is, under Article 465, also granted the
owners of the land located in the margin nearest the
formed island for the reason that they are in the best
position to cultivate and attend to the exploitation of
the same.
If, however, the riparian owner fails to assert his claim
thereof, the same may yield to the adverse possession
of third parties- prescription= 30 years.
This is a case between a riparian owner and the one in
possession of the island. Jagualing have the land in
possession (in bad faith) for only 15 years, hence he
cannot raise adverse possession against the riparian
owner.
Hence, there is no need to make a final determination
regarding the origins of the island, whether or not it is
covered by Art 463 or 459 of the civil code.
DECISION: DENIED. AFFIREMED CA DECISION.