RONQUILLO V.

COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
Del Rosario owns a registered land adjacent to Estero Calubcub
which is already dried up due to the dumping of garbage by the
sorrounding neighborhood and not by any natural causes.
Defendant now occupies said dried up land until Del Rosario,
claiming ownership over the same, required him to vacate on the
basis of Article 370 of the Civil Code which provides that riparian
owner owns the dried up river bed abandoned by natural
changes.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Article 370 applies
RULING: No.
The rules on alluvion do not apply to man-made or artificial
accretions nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros
or artificial drainage systems. Considering our earlier finding that
the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub was actually caused by
the active intervention of man, it follows that Article 370 does not
apply to the case at bar and, hence, the Del Rosarios cannot be
entitled thereto supposedly as riparian owners.
The dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub should thus be
considered as forming part of the land of the public domain which
cannot be subject to acquisition by private ownership.
VIAJAR v. CA
It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System
does not protect the riparian owner against the diminution of the
area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course
of an adjoining stream or river.
FACTS:
Private respondents Spouses Ladrido are owners of Lot 7511 of
the Cadastral Survey of Pototan Iloilo. Petitioners are owners of
the Lot 7340, which they bought from the Te. Viajar had lot 7340
relocated and found out that the property was in the possession
of Ladrido. She demanded the return but the latter refused. She

instituted a civil action for recovery of possession and damages.

She also impleaded Te as defedant for the reason that if Ladrido is
going to be favored then the sale was to be annulled and plaintif
must be reimbursed. During the trial it was proven that during the
cadastral survey in 1926, the two lots were separated by the
Suague River and that a part of the land of Lot 7340 and the old
river bed were in the possession of the defendants and that the
plaintifs have never been in actual physical possession.
CFI ruled in favor of the defendants which the CA confirmed.
There was a mention in the case that the issue from which the
decision of the CFI was not the issue appealed in the CA so the
affirmation made by the CA should be void.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the change in the course of the Suague River
was gradual or sudden
2) Whether or not the plaintifs are protected by the Torrens
System (in relation to the dimunition of the area of their land
because the plaintifs are contending that Art 457 must be
interpreted as applicable only to unregistered lands)
RULING:
It was established in the trial that for a period of 40 years the
Suague river overflowed its banks yearly and the property of the
defendant gradually received deposits of soil from the efects of
the current of the river.
It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System
does not protect the riparian owner against the dimunition of the
area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course
of an adjoining stream or river. Accretions which the banks of the
river may gradually receive from the efect of the current become
the property of the owners of the banks.
REPUBLIC V. CA
132 SCRA 514
FACTS:

Respondents sought the registration of land adjacent to their

fishpond. They are the registered owners of parcel of lot
bordering on the Bocaue and Meycauyan rivers. The lower and
appellate court allowed registration but this was opposed by the
government.
HELD:
There is no accretion if by man-made causes.
BINALAY VS. MANALO
A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is not the alluvial
process contemplated in Art. 457. The accumulation of the soil
deposits must be slow and hardly imperceptible in order for the
riparian owner to acquire ownership thereof. Also, the land where
the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the rivers (or
the sea coast).
FACTS
Manalo acquired 2 lots which were originally owned by Judge
Taccad from 2 diferent people (the latters daughter and from an
earlier purchaser). These lots were later consolidated into Lot
307, a total of 10.45 hectares. The lot was beside the Cagayan
River, which, due to flooding, would place a portion of the land
underwater during the rainy season (September to December).
On sunny days, however, the land would be dried up for the
entire dry season (January to August). When a survey of the land
was conducted on a rainy month, a portion of the land that
Manalo bought was then underwater and was thus left
unsurveyed and excluded from Lot 307.
The big picture is this: Cagayan River running from south to north,
forks at a certain point to form two braches (western and eastern)
and then unites at the other end, further north, to form a
narrower strip of land. The eastern branch of the river cuts
through Lot 307, and is flooded during the rainy season. The
unsurveyed portion, on the other hand, is the bed of the eastern
branch. Note that the fork exists only during the rainy season
while the island/elongated strip of land formed in the middle of
the forks becomes dry and perfect for cultivation when the
Cagayan river is at its ordinary depth. The strip of land in the

middle of the fork totaled 22.7 hectares and was labeled Lot 821822. Lot 821 is directly opposite Lot 307 and is separated by the
eastern branch of the rivers fork.
Manalo claims that Lot 821 belongs to him by way of accretion to
the submerged portion of the land to which it is adjacent.
Petitioners (Binalay, et al) who possess the Lot 821, on the other
hand, insist that they own it. They occupy the other edges of the
lot along the river bank (i.e. the fertile portions on which they
plant tobacco and other agricultural products) and also cultivate
the western strip during the summer.
Manalo filed 2 cases for forcible entry which were both dismissed.
Later on, he filed a complaint for quieting of title, possession, and
damages against petitioner. The trial court and the CA ruled in
favor of Manalo, saying that Lot 821 and Lot 307 cannot be
considered separate and distinct from each other. They reasoned
that when the land dries up for the most part of the year, the two
are connected. [Note: The CA applied the ruling in Govt of the
Phil Islands vs. Colegio de San Jose, which was actually
inappropriate because the subject matter in this case was a lake
so that the definition of a bed was diferent.]
ISSUE:
Whether or not Manalo owns Lot 821 by way of accretion
RULING: No.
The disputed property is not an accretion. It is the action of the
heavy rains that cause the highest ordinary level of waters of the
Cagayan River during the rainy season. The depressed portion is
a river bed and is thus considered property of public domain.
The SC observed the following:
a) The pictures identified by Manalo during his direct examination
depict the depressed portion as a river bed. The dried up portion
had dike-like slopes (around 8m) on both sides connecting it to
Lot 307 and Lot 821 that are vertical and very prominent.

b) The eastern bed already existed even before Manalo bought

the land. It was called Rio Muerte de Cagayan.
c) Manalo could not have acquire ownership of the land because
article 420 of the civil code states that rivers are property of
public dominion. The word river includes the running waters,
the bed, and the banks. [The seller never actually owned that part
of the land since it was public property]
d) The submerged area (22.72 ha) is twice the area of the land he
actually bought. It is difficult to suppose that such a sizable area
could have been brought about by accretion.
More importantly, the requisites of accretion in article 457 were
not satisfied. These are: 1) that the deposition of the soil or
sediment be gradual and imperceptible; 2) that it be the result of
the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and 3) the land
where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the
rivers (or the sea coast). The accretion shouldve been attached
to Lot 307 for Manalo to acquire its ownership. BUT, the claimed
accretion lies on the bank of the river; not adjacent to Lot 307 but
directly opposite it across the river. Aside from that, the dike-like
slopes which were very steep may only be formed by a sudden
and forceful action like flooding. The steep slopes could not have
been formed by the river in a slow and gradual manner.

and 2, which was located between the fishpond and Liputan River.
Reynantes family sold the nipa palms, and appropriated the fruits
as his own, without interference or complaint from Don Carlos.
Upon Don Carlos death, his heirs convinced Reynante to sign an
affidavit, relinquishing his rights as a caretaker of the fishpond.
Reynante, however, continued to live in the nipa hut he had built,
and he still took care of the nipa palms, which he continued to
sell.
This lead the heirs to file a complaint for forcible entry with
preliminary injunction against Reynante in the MTC. The MTC
found for Reynante, but the heirs appealed to the RTC, where the
decision was reversed. The CA merely affirmed the decision of the
RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accretion automatically becomes registered land
just because the adjoining lot is registered in the Torrens System?
HELD:
While it is true that alluvial deposits shall belong to the owner of
the lot adjoining such accretion, it does not automatically bestow
an imprescriptibility. If the owners of said land have not registered
this with the proper entity, said land will be subject to acquisition
by prescription, which was what occurred in this case.

REYNANTE v. CA
FACTS:
More than 50 years ago, Reynante was taken as tenant by the
late Don Cosme Carlos over a fishpond in Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Reynante subsequently built a nipa hut where he and his family
lived and took care of the nipa palms which they planted on lots 1

Since the affidavits prove that Reynante has been in possession

of these lands for more than 50 years, the SC rightly held that the
land belongs to him.