Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

1. TITONG v.

CA employed Lerit as his tenant, he instructed the latter to change the course
of the old river and direct the flow of water to the lowland at the southern
For one to file an action to quiet title to a parcel of land, the requisites in Art portion of Titong’s property, thus converting the old river into a Riceland.
476 of the NCC must be complied with meaning there should be an
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance setting forth the cloud or doubt Private resps, on the other hand, denied claim of Titong’s, saying that the
over the title. Otherwise, the action to be filed can either be ejectment, area and boundaries of disputed land remained unaltered during the series
forcible entry, unlawful detainer, accion reivindicatoria or accion publiciana. of conveyances prior to its coming into his hands. Accdg to him, Titong first
declared land for taxation purposes which showed that the land had an area
FACTS: of 5.5 hectares and was bounded on the north by the B. River; on the east
by property under ownership by Zaragoza, and on the west by property
A 20,592 square meter parcel of land located at Barrio Titiong, Masbate is owned by De la Cruz. He also alleges that Titong sold property to Verano.
the subject property being disputed in this case. The property is being The latter reacquired the property pursuant to mutual agreement to
claimed by 2 contestants, however legal title over the property can only be repurchase the same.
given to one of them.
However, the property remained in Titong’s hands only for 4 days because
The case originated from an action for quieting of title filed by petitioner he sold it to Espinosa. It then became a part of the estate of Espinosa’s wife,
Mario Titong. The RTC of Masbate decided in favor of private respondents, late Segundina Espinosa. Later on, her heirs executed an “Extrajudicial
Vicente Laurio and Angeles Laurio as the true and lawful owners of the Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale” whereby the 5.5 hectares was
disputed land. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. sold to Laurio for 5,000 pesos. In all these conveyances, the area and
boundaries of the property remained exactly the same as those appearing
Titong asserts that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an in the name of Titong’s.
area of 3.2800 hectares and declared for taxation purposes. He claims that The court found out that 2 surveys were made of the property. First survey
on three separate occasions, private resps, with their hired laborers, forcibly was made by Titong, while the second was the relocation survey ordered by
entered a portion of the land containing an approximate area of 2 hectares the lower court. Because of which, certain discrepancies surfaced. Contrary
and began plowing the same under pretext of ownership. On the other to Titong’s allegation, he was actually claiming 5.9789 hectares, the total
hand, private resps denied the claim and said that the subject land formed areas of lot nos 3918, 3918-A and 3606. The lot 3479 pertaining to
part of the 5.5 hectare agricultural land which they had purchased from their Espinosa’s was left with only an area of 4.1841 hectares instead of the 5.5
predecessor-in-interest, Pablo Espinosa. hectares sold by Titong to him.

Titong identified Espinosa as the his adjoining owner asserting that no Apprised of the discrepancy, private resps filed a protest before Bureau of
controversy had sprouted between them for 20 years until the latter sold lot Lands against 1st survey, and filing a case for alteration of boundaries before
3749 to V. Laurio. The boundary between the land sold to Espinosa and what the MTC, proceedings of which were suspended because of instant case.
remained of Titong’s property was the old Bugsayon river. When Titong
Private resps. Avers that Titong is one of the four heirs of his mother, intrusion into his purported property. The grounds mentioned are for action
Leonida Zaragoza. In the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of Estate of late for forcible entry and not quieting title.
Zaragoza, the heirs adjudicated unto themselves the 3.6 hectares property
of the deceased. The property was bounded by the north by Verano, on the In addition, the case was considered to be a boundary dispute. The RTC and
east by Bernardo Titong, on the south by the Bugsayon River and on the CA correctly held that when Titong sold the 5.5 hectare land to Espinosa, his
west by Benigno Titong. rights and possession ceased and were transferred to Laurio upon its sale to
Instead of reflecting only .9000 hectares as his rightful share in the extrajud the latter.
settlement, Titong’s share bloated to 2.4 hectares. It then appeared to
Laurio that Titong encroached upon his property and declared it as part of Thus, it is now a contract of sale wherein it is a contract transferring
his inheritance. dominion and other real rights in the thing sold. Titong also cannot rely on
the claim of prescription as ordinary acquisitive prescription requires
The boundaries were likewise altered so that it was bounded on the north possession in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law.
by Verano, on the east by B. Titong, on the south by Espinosa and on the
west by Adolfo Titong. Laurio also denied that Titong diverted course of the
B. river after he had repurchased the land from Verano because land was
immediately sold to Espinosa thereafter.

Whether or not Titong is the rightful owner of the subject property


The remedy for quieting of title may be availed of under the circumstances
mentioned in Art 476 of the NCC wherein it says that action to quiet title
may be made as a remedial or preventive measure. Under 476, a claimant
must show that there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding which casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon owner’s
title to or interest in real property. The ground for filing a complaint for
quieting title must be “instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
In the case at bar, Titong failed to allege that there was an instrument, claim
etc be clouded over his property. Through his allegations, what Titong
imagined as clouds cast on his title were Laurio’s alleged acts of physical
4. BINALAY VS. MANALO 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,
A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is not the alluvial process et al) who possess the Lot 821, on the other hand, insist that they own it.
contemplated in Art. 457. The accumulation of the soil deposits must be They occupy the other edges of the lot along the river bank (i.e. the fertile
slow and hardly imperceptible in order for the riparian owner to acquire portions on which they plant tobacco and other agricultural products) and
ownership thereof. Also, the land where the accretion takes place is also cultivate the western strip during the summer.
adjacent to the banks of the rivers (or the sea coast).
Manalo filed 2 cases for forcible entry which were both dismissed. Later on,
FACTS: 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
Manalo acquired 2 lots which were originally owned by Judge Taccad from Lot 821 and Lot 307 cannot be considered separate and distinct from each
2 different people (the latter’s daughter and from an earlier purchaser). other. They reasoned that when the land dries up for the most part of the
These lots were later consolidated into Lot 307, a total of 10.45 hectares. year, the two are connected. [Note: The CA applied the ruling in Gov’t of the
The lot was beside the Cagayan River, which, due to flooding, would place a Phil Islands vs. Colegio de San Jose, which was actually inappropriate
portion of the land underwater during the rainy season (September to because the subject matter in this case was a lake so that the definition of a
December). On sunny days, however, the land would be dried up for the “bed” was different.]
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 ISSUE:
then underwater and was thus left unsurveyed and excluded from Lot 307.
Whether or not Manalo owns Lot 821 by way of accretion
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 RULING: No.
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 The disputed property is not an accretion. It is the action of the heavy rains
season. The unsurveyed portion, on the other hand, is the bed of the eastern that cause the highest ordinary level of waters of the Cagayan River during
branch. Note that the fork exists only during the rainy season while the the rainy season. The depressed portion is a river bed and is thus considered
“island”/elongated strip of land formed in the middle of the forks becomes property of public domain.
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 The SC observed the following:
was labeled Lot 821-822. Lot 821 is directly opposite Lot 307 and is
separated by the eastern branch of the river’s fork. 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 should’ve 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.
5. Ignacio Grande vs. Court of Appeals Grandes only specifies a specific portion, of which the alluvial deposits are
not included, and are thus, subject to acquisition by prescription. Since the
Facts: Calalungs proved that they have been in possession of the land since 1934
via two credible witnesses, as opposed to the Grande’s single witness who
The Grandes are owners of a parcel of land in Isabela, by inheritance from claims that the Calalungs only entered the land in 1948, the Calalungs have
their deceased mother, Patricia Angui, who likewise, inherited it from her been held to have acquired the land created by the alluvial deposits by
parents. In the early 1930’s, the Grandes decided to have their land prescription. This is because the possession took place in 1934, when the
surveyed for registration purposes. The land was described to have Cagayan law to be followed was Act 190, and not the New Civil Code, which only took
River as the northeastern boundary, as stated in the title. effect in 1950.

By 1958, a gradual accretion took place due to the action of the current of
the river, and an alluvial deposit of almost 19,964 sq.m. was added to the
registered area. The Grandes filed an action for quieting of title against the
Calalungs, stating that they were in peaceful and continuous possession of
the land created by the alluvial deposit until 1948, when the Calalungs
allegedly trespassed into their property. The Calalungs, however, stated that
they were the rightful owners since prior to 1933. The CFI rendered a
decision adjudging the ownership of the portion in question to petitioners,
and ordering respondents to vacate the premises and deliver possession
thereof to petitioners, and to pay to the latter P250.00 as damages and
costs. Upon appeal to the CA, however, the decision was reversed.


Whether or not respondents have acquired the alluvial property in question

through prescription.


Art. 457 dictate that alluvium deposits on land belong to the owners of the
adjacent land. However, this does not ipso jure become theirs merely
believing that said land have become imprescriptible. The land of the