document9

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!'.