Agustin v. IAC [G.R. Nos. 66075-76. July 5, 1990.]First Division, Grino-Aquino (J): 4 concurringFacts: The Cagayan River separates the towns of Solana on the west and Tuguegarao on the east in theprovince of Cagayan. In 1919 the lands east of the river were covered by the Tuguegarao Cadastre. In 1925,OCT 5472 was issued for land east of the Cagayan River owned by Eulogio Agustin. As the years went by,the Cagayan River moved gradually eastward, depositing silt on the western bank. The shifting of the riverand the siltation continued until 1968. In 1950, all lands west of the river were included in the SolanaCadastre. Among these occupying lands covered by the Solana Cadastre were Pablo Binayug and MariaMelad. Binayug was in possession since 1947 of Lots 3349, 7875 to 7879, 7881 to 7885, 7891 and 7892. It ishas an area of 8 hectares planted to tobacco and corn and another 12 hectares overgrown with talahib.Binayugs Homestead Application W-79055 over this land was approved in 1959 and his possessionrecognized in the decision in Civil Case 101. On the other hand, as a result of Civil Case 343-T, MacarioMelad, the predecessor-in-interest of Maria Melad and Timoteo Melad, was issued OCT P-5026 for Lot 3351of Cad. 293 on 1 June 1956. Through the years, the Cagayan River eroded lands of the Tuguegarao Cadastreon its eastern bank among which was Agustins Lot 8457, depositing the alluvium as accretion on the landpossessed by Binayug on the western bank. However, in 1968, after a big flood, the Cagayan River changedits course, returned to its 1919 bed, and, in the process, cut across the lands of Maria Melad, Timoteo Melad,and the spouses Pablo Binayug and Geronima Ubina whose lands were transferred on the eastern, orTuguegarao, side of the river. To cultivate those lots they had to cross the river. In April 1969, while theMelads, Binayug, Urbina and their tenants were planting corn on their lots located on the eastern side of theCagayan River, Agustin, the Heirs of Baldomero Langcay, Juan Langcay, and Arturo Balisi, accompanied bythe mayor and some policemen of Tuguegarao, claimed the same lands as their own and drove away theMelads, Binayug and Urbina from the premises.On 21 April 1970, Maria and Timoteo Melad filed a complaint (Civil Case 343-T) to recover Lot 3351 withan area of 5 hectares and its 6.6-hectare accretion. On 24 April 1970, Pablo Binayug filed a separatecomplaint (Civil Case 344-T) to recover his lots and their accretions. On 16 June 1975, the trial courtrendered a decision in Civil Case 343-T, ordering Eulogio Agustin, Gregorio Tuliao, Jacinto Buquel andOctavio Bancud, their representatives or agents to vacate Lot 3351 of Solana Cadastre together with itsaccretion consisting of portions of Lots 9463, 9462 and 9461 of Tuguegarao Cadastre and to restoreownership in favor of Maria Melad and Timoteo Melad who are the only interested heirs of Macario Melad.The trial court likewise ordered, in Civil Case 344-T, Justo Adduru, Andres Pastor, Teofilo Tagacay, VicenteCamilan, Nicanor Mora, Baldomero Cagurangan, Domingo Quilang, Cesar Cabalza, Elias Macababbad,Titong Macababbad, Arturo Balisi, Jose Allabun, Eulogio Agustin, Banong Aquino, Junior Cambri and JuanProperty, 2003 ( 7 )Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)Langoay, their representatives or agents to vacate Lots 3349, 7875 to 7879, 7881 to 7885, 7891 and 7892,together with its accretion and to restore possession to Pablo Binayug and Geronimo Urbina. Withoutpronouncement as to damages which were not properly proven and to costs.Eulogio Agustin appealed the decision in Civil Case 343-T, while Eulogio Agustin, Baldomero Cagurangan(substituted by his heir), Arturo Balisi and Juan Langcay appealed the decision in Civil Case 344-T. But uponmotion of the Melads, Binayug and Urbina, the trial court ordered on 15 August 1975 the execution pendingappeal of the judgment in Civil Case 344-T against Cagurangan, Balisi and Langcay on the ground that theirappeal was dilatory as they had not presented evidence at the trial. On 29 November 1983, the IntermediateAppellate Court rendered a decision affirming in toto the judgment of the trial court, with costs against theAgustin, Cagurangan, Balisi and Langcay. Hence, the petition for review.The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, and affirmed the decision of the IAC, now CA; withcosts against Agustin, et.al.1. Findings of fact of the Court of Appeal conclusive with the Supreme CourtThe finding of the Court of Appeals that there had been accretions to the lots of the Melads, Binauygand Urbina who did not lose the ownership of such accretions even after they were separated from theprincipal lots by the sudden change of course of the river, is a finding of fact which is conclusive on thisCourt. That finding is supported by Art. 457 of the New Civil Code which provides that to the owners oflands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of thecurrent of the waters. (366)2. Conditions for accretion to benefit a riparian ownerAccretion benefits a riparian owner when the following requisites are present: (1) that the deposit begradual and imperceptible; (2) that it resulted from the effects of the current of the water; and (3) that the landwhere accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of a river (Republic vs. CA, 132 SCRA 514). In the presentcase, the accretion on the western bank of the Cagayan River had been going on from 1919 up to 1968 or fora period of 49 years. It was gradual and imperceptible. Only when Lot 3351, with an original area of 5hectares described in the free patent that was issued to Macario Melad in June 1956, was resurveyed in 1968did it become known that 6.6 hectares had been added to it. Lot 3351, covered by a homestead patent issuedin June 1950 to Pablo Binayug, grew from its original area of 18 hectares, by an additional 50 hectaresthrough alluvium as the Cagayan River gradually moved to the east. These accretions belong to riparianowners upon whose lands the alluvial deposits were made (Roxas vs. Tuason, 9 Phil. 408; Director of Landsvs. Rizal, 87 Phil. 806).3. Reason for the principle of accretion benefiting a riparian ownerThe reason for the principle is because, if lands bordering on streams are exposed to floods and otherdamage due to the destructive force of the waters, and if by virtue of law they are subject to encumbrancesand various kinds of easements, it is only just that such risks or dangers as may prejudice the owners thereofshould in some way be compensated by the right of accretion (Cortes vs. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567).4. Ownership of accretion not lost upon sudden and abrupt change of the riverThe ownership of the accretion to the lands was not lost upon the sudden and abrupt change of thecourse of the river (Cagayan River in 1968 or 1969 when it reverted to its old 1919 bed), and separated ortransferred said accretions to the other side (or eastern bank) of the river. Articles 459 and 463 of the NewCivil Code apply to this situation. Article 459 provides that whenever the current of a river, creek or torrentsegregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner ofthe land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he removes thesame within two years. Article 463 provides that whenever the current of a river divides itself intobranches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He alsoProperty, 2003 ( 8 )Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current.