document9

12
SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 98045. June 26, 1996] DESAMPARADO VDA. DE NAZARENO and LETICIA NAZARENO TAPIA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MR. & MRS. JOSE SALASALAN, MR. & MRS. LEO RABAYA, AVELINO LABIS, HON. ROBERTO G. HILARIO, ROLLEO I. IGNACIO, ALBERTO M. GILLERA and HON. ABELARDO G. PALAD, JR., in their official and/or private capacities, respondents. SYLLABUS 1. CIVIL LAW; OWNERSHIP; RIGHTS OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY; ARTICLE 457; REQUISITES.- In the case of Meneses vs. CA, this Court held that accretion, as a mode of acquiring property under Art. 457 of the Civil Code, requires the concurrence of these requisites: (1) that the deposition of 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) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers (or the sea coast). These are called the rules on alluvion which if present in a case, give to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers or streams any accretion gradually received from the effects of the current of waters. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR.- Where the accretion was formed by the dumping of boulders, soil and other filling materials on portions of the Balacanas Creek and the Cagayan River bounding petitioner's land, it cannot be claimed that the accumulation was gradual and imperceptible, resulting from the action of the waters or the current of the creek and the river. In Hilario vs. City of Manila, this Court held that the word current indicates the participation of the body of water in the ebb and flow of waters due to high and low

Upload: marichu-hernandez

Post on 19-Aug-2015

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

full case

TRANSCRIPT

SECOND DIVISION[G.R. No. 98045. June 26, 1996]DESAMPARADO VDA. DE NAZARENO an !E"#$#A NAZARENO"AP#A, petitioners, vs. "%E$O&R"O' APPEA!S, MR. (MRS.JOSE SA!ASA!AN, MR. ( MRS. !EO RA)A*A, AVE!#NO !A)#S,%ON. RO)ER"O G. %#!AR#O, RO!!EO #. #GNA$#O, A!)ER"O M.G#!!ERA an %ON. A)E!ARDO G. PA!AD, JR., +n ,-e+. o//+0+a1an2o. 3.+4a,e 0a3a0+,+e5, respondents.S*!!A)&S1. $#V#! !A67 O6NERS%#P7 R#G%"S O' A$$ESS#ON 6#"% RESPE$" "O#MMOVA)!E PROPER"*7 AR"#$!E 4587 RE9S#"ES.: In the case of Menesesvs. CA, this Court held thataccretion, as a mode of acquiring property under Art.!"of theCi#il Code, requirestheconcurrenceof theserequisites$ %&'that thedeposition of soil or sediment (e gradual and impercepti(le) %*' that it (e the resultof the action of the +aters of the ri#er %or sea') and %,' that the land +here accretionta-es place is ad.acent to the (an-s of ri#ers %or the sea coast'./hese are calledthe rules on allu#ion +hich if present in a case, gi#e to the o+ners of lands ad.oiningthe (an-s of ri#ers or streams any accretion gradually recei#ed from the effects ofthe current of +aters.2. #D.7 #D.7 #D.7 #D.7 #D.7 NO" PRESEN" #N $ASE A" )AR.: 0here the accretion +asformed (y the dumping of (oulders, soil and other filling materials on portions of the1alacanas Cree- and the Cagayan 2i#er (ounding petitioner3s land, it cannot (eclaimedthat theaccumulation+asgradual andimpercepti(le, resultingfromtheaction of the +aters or the current of the cree- and the ri#er. In Hilario vs. City ofManila, this Court held that the +ord current indicates the participation of the (odyof +ater in the e(( and flo+ of +aters due to high and lo+ tide.Not ha#ing met thefirst and second requirements of the rules of allu#ion, petitioners cannot claim therights of a riparian o+ner.;. #D.7 #D.7 #D.7 #D.7 #D.7 "%A" DEPOS#" #S D&E "O "%E $&RREN" O' "%ER#VER,MANDA"OR*.: In Republicvs.CA, thisCourtruledthat therequirement that thedeposit should (e due to the effect of the current of the ri#er is indispensa(le./hise4cludes from A.,. 458 of the Ci#il Code all deposits caused (y humaninter#ention. 5utting it differently, allu#ion must (e the e4clusi#e +or- ofnature. /hus, in Tiongco vs. Director of Lands, et al., +here the land +as not formedsolely (y the natural effect of the +ater current of the ri#er (ordering said land (ut isalsotheconsequenceof thedirect anddeli(erateinter#entionof man, it +asdeemed a man6made accretion and, as such, part of the pu(lic domain. In the caseat (ar, the su(.ect land +as the direct result of the dumping of sa+dust (y the SunValley 7um(er Co. consequent to its sa+mill operations.4. #D.7 P&)!#$!ANDS7 '#ND#NGSAS S&$%)*"%E)&REA&O' !ANDS,RESPE$"ED.: /he mere filing of the 8iscellaneous Sales Application constitutedanadmissionthat theland(eingappliedfor +aspu(licland, ha#ing(eenthesu(.ect of a Sur#ey 5lan +herein said land+as descri(ed as anorchard. 9urthermore, the 1ureau of 7ands classified the su(.ect land as anaccretion area +hich +as formed (y deposits of sa+dust in the 1alacanas Cree-and the Cagayan ri#er, in accordance +ith the ocular inspection conducted (y the1ureau of 7ands. /his Court has often enough held that findings of administrati#eagencies+hichha#eacquirede4pertise(ecausetheir.urisdictionisconfinedtospecificmattersaregenerallyaccordednot onlyrespect (ut e#enfinality. Again,+hensaidfactual findingsareaffirmed(ytheCourt of Appeals, thesameareconclusi#e on the parties and not re#ie+a(le (y this Court.5. #D.7 P&)!#$ !AND !A67 J&R#SD#$"#ON OVER P&)!#$ !ANDS.: :a#ingdetermined that the su(.ect land is pu(lic land, a fortiori, the 1ureau of 7ands, as+ell astheOfficeof theSecretaryof AgricultureandNatural 2esourcesha#e.urisdiction o#er the same in accordance +ith the 5u(lic 7and 7a+. ;nder Sections, andthereof, the Director of 7ands has .urisdiction, authority and controlo#erpu(lic lands. :ere respondent 5alad as Director of 7ands, is authori!'.E>F Coca6Cola 1ottlers 5hilippines, Inc. v. CA, **> SC2A !,, %&>>'.E&AF &,* SC2A !& %&>@'.E&&F &C C.A. 2ep. *&&.E&*F In#estigation 2eport, Appendi4 =C=, p. ,A, Rollo.E&,F 5etition, p. &C, Rollo.E&F Appendi4 =D=, p. ,,. Rollo.E&!F &AC 5hil. &AC %&>CA'.E&CF :amoy v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural 2esources, supra.E&"F Appendi4 =D=, p. ,!, Rollo.E&@F 5ineda v. C9I of Da#ao, & SC2A &A*A.E&>F &! SC2A ," %&>C!'.