Heirs of Navarro v.

IAC
Facts
On October 3, 1946, Sinforoso Pascual filed an application for foreshore lease covering a tract of
foreshore land in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan, having an area of approximately seventeen (17) hectares.
This application was denied on January 15, 1953. So was his motion for reconsideration. Subsequently,
petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, also now deceased, Emiliano Navarro, filed a fishpond application
with the Bureau of Fisheries covering twenty five (25) hectares of foreshore land also in Sibocon,
Balanga, Bataan. Initially the application was denied, eventually however the grant was given. Pascual
claimed that this land is an accretion to his property, The Talisay River as well as the Bulacan River flow
downstream and meet at the Manila Bay thereby depositing sand and silt on Pascual's property resulting
in an accretion thereon. Sinforoso Pascual claimed the accretion as the riparian owner. On March 25,
1960, the Director of Lands, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, filed an opposition thereto
stating that neither Pascual nor his predecessors-in-interest possessed sufficient title to the subject
property, the same being a portion of the public domain and, therefore, it belongs to the Republic of the
Philippines. On November 10, 1975, the courta quorendered judgment finding the subject property to
be foreshore land and, being a part of the public domain, it cannot be the subject of land registration
proceedings. On appeal, the respondent court reversed the findings of the courta quoand granted the
petition for registration of the subject property but excluding certain areas. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by in the CA but the same was denied. Anchoring their claim of ownership on
Article 457 of the Civil Code, petitioners vigorously argue that the disputed 14-hectare land is an
accretion caused by the joint action of the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers which run their course on the
eastern and western boundaries, respectively, of petitioners' own tract of land.
Issue
Whether or not the petitioners can rightfully claim the land under the principle of accretion
Held
The petitioners claim is misplaced. The principle of accretion is only applicable to owners whose estates
are adjacent to rivers as stated in Article 457 of the Civil Code. The disputed land is an accretion not on a
river bank but on a sea bank, or on what used to be the foreshore of Manila Bay which adjoined
petitioners' own tract of land on the northern side. As such, the applicable law is not Article 457 of to
Civil Code but Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. The disputed property is an accretion on a
sea bank, Manila Bay being an inlet or an arm of the sea; as such, the disputed property is, under Article
4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, part of the public domain. As part of the public domain, the
herein disputed land is intended for public uses, and "so long as the land in litigation belongs to the
national domain and is reserved for public uses, it is not capable of being appropriated by any private
person, except through express authorization granted in due form by a competent authority. "Only the
executive and possibly the legislative departments have the right and the power to make the declaration
that the lands so gained by action of the sea is no longer necessary for purposes of public utility or for
the cause of establishment of special industries or for coast guard services. Petitioners utterly fail to
show that either the executive or legislative department has already declared the disputed land as
qualified, under Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, to be the property of petitioners as
owners of the estates adjacent thereto.