VIAJAR v.

CA
It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian owner
against the diminution of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an
adjoining stream or river.

FACTS:
Private respondents Spouses Ladrido are owners of Lot 7511 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan Iloilo.
Petitioners are owners of the Lot 7340, which they bought from the Te. Viajar had lot 7340 relocated and
found out that the property was in the possession of Ladrido. She demanded the return but the latter
refused. She instituted a civil action for recovery of possession and damages. She also impleaded Te as
defedant for the reason that if Ladrido is going to be favored then the sale was to be annulled and plaintiff
must be reimbursed. During the trial it was proven that during the cadastral survey in 1926, the two lots
were separated by the Suague River and that a part of the land of Lot 7340 and the old river bed were in
the possession of the defendants and that the plaintiffs have never been in actual physical possession.
CFI ruled in favor of the defendants which the CA confirmed. There was a mention in the case that the
issue from which the decision of the CFI was not the issue appealed in the CA so the affirmation made by
the CA should be void.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the change in the course of the Suague River was gradual or sudden
2) Whether or not the plaintiffs are protected by the Torrens System (in relation to the dimunition of the
area of their land because the plaintiffs are contending that Art 457 must be interpreted as applicable only
to unregistered lands)

RULING:
It was established in the trial that for a period of 40 years the Suague river overflowed its banks yearly
and the property of the defendant gradually received deposits of soil from the effects of the current of the
river.
It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian owner
against the dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an
adjoining stream or river. Accretions which the banks of the river may gradually receive from the effect of
the current become the property of the owners of the banks.

BINALAY VS. MANALO

A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is not the alluvial process contemplated in Art. 457. The
accumulation of the soil deposits must be slow and hardly imperceptible in order for the riparian owner to
acquire ownership thereof. Also, the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the
rivers (or the sea coast).

FACTS
Manalo acquired 2 lots which were originally owned by Judge Taccad from 2 different people (the latters
daughter and from an earlier purchaser). These lots were later consolidated into Lot 307, a total of 10.45
hectares. The lot was beside the Cagayan River, which, due to flooding, would place a portion of the land
underwater during the rainy season (September to December). On sunny days, however, the land would
be dried up for the 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 then underwater and was thus left unsurveyed
and excluded from Lot 307.
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 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 season. The
unsurveyed portion, on the other hand, is the bed of the eastern branch. Note that the fork exists only
during the rainy season while the island/elongated strip of land formed in the middle of the forks
becomes 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 was labeled Lot 821-822. Lot 821 is directly opposite
Lot 307 and is separated by the eastern branch of the rivers fork.
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, et al) who possess the Lot 821, on the other hand, insist that
they own it. They occupy the other edges of the lot along the river bank (i.e. the fertile portions on which
they plant tobacco and other agricultural products) and also cultivate the western strip during the summer.
Manalo filed 2 cases for forcible entry which were both dismissed. Later on, 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 Lot 821 and Lot 307 cannot be considered separate and distinct from each other.
They reasoned that when the land dries up for the most part of the year, the two are connected. [Note:
The CA applied the ruling in Govt of the Phil Islands vs. Colegio de San Jose, which was actually
inappropriate because the subject matter in this case was a lake so that the definition of a bed was
different.]

ISSUE:
Whether or not Manalo owns Lot 821 by way of accretion

RULING: No.

The disputed property is not an accretion. It is the action of the heavy rains that cause the highest
ordinary level of waters of the Cagayan River during the rainy season. The depressed portion is a river
bed and is thus considered property of public domain.
The SC observed the following:
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 shouldve 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.

REYNANTE v. CA
FACTS:
More than 50 years ago, Reynante was taken as tenant by the late Don Cosme Carlos over a fishpond in
Meycauayan, Bulacan. Reynante subsequently built a nipa hut where he and his family lived and took
care of the nipa palms which they planted on lots 1 and 2, which was located between the fishpond and
Liputan River. Reynantes family sold the nipa palms, and appropriated the fruits as his own, without
interference or complaint from Don Carlos.
Upon Don Carlos death, his heirs convinced Reynante to sign an affidavit, relinquishing his rights as a
caretaker of the fishpond. Reynante, however, continued to live in the nipa hut he had built, and he still
took care of the nipa palms, which he continued to sell.
This lead the heirs to file a complaint for forcible entry with preliminary injunction against Reynante in the
MTC. The MTC found for Reynante, but the heirs appealed to the RTC, where the decision was reversed.
The CA merely affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accretion automatically becomes registered land just because the adjoining lot is
registered in the Torrens System?

HELD:
While it is true that alluvial deposits shall belong to the owner of the lot adjoining such accretion, it does
not automatically bestow an imprescriptibility. If the owners of said land have not registered this with the
proper entity, said land will be subject to acquisition by prescription, which was what occurred in this
case.
Since the affidavits prove that Reynante has been in possession of these lands for more than 50 years,
the SC rightly held that the land belongs to him.

VDA. DE AVILES v. CA
An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not be brought for the purpose of settling a boundary
dispute.

FACTS:
Eduardo Aviles, the predecessor of the petitioners is the bother of defendant Camilo. They inherited their
lands from their parents and have agreed to subdivide the same amongst themselves. The area alloted
(sic) to Eduardo Aviles is 16,111 square meters more or less, to Anastacio Aviles is 16,214 square meters
more or less, while the area alloted to defendant Camilo Aviles is 14,470 square meters more or less.
Defendants land composed of the riceland portion of his land is 13,290 square meters, the fishpond
portion is 500 square meters and the residential portion is 680 square meters, or a total of 14,470 square
meters.
The Petitioners claim that they are the owners of the fish pond which they claim is within their area.
Defendant Camilo Aviles asserted a color of title over the northern portion of the property with an area of
approximately 1,200 square meters by constructing a bamboo fence (thereon) and moving the earthen
dikes, thereby molesting and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over said portion.
Petitioners say that the fences were created to unduly encroach to their property but the defendant said
that he merely reconstructed the same.

Petitioners brought an action to quiet title but were denied thus this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners filed the right action

RULING:
No, Petitioners filed the wrong action. This is obviously a boundary dispute and as such the action must
fail.

Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is, in truth
and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action
may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon a title to real property or any
interest therein.

Petitioners fail to point out any any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that could been
a cloud to their title. In fact, both plaintiffs and defendant admitted the existence of the agreement of
partition dated June 8, 1957 and in accordance therewith, a fixed area was allotted to them and that the
only controversy is whether these lands were properly measured.
A special civil action for quieting of title is not the proper remedy for settling a boundary dispute, and that
petitioners should have instituted an ejectment suit instead. An action for forcible entry, whenever
warranted by the period prescribed in Rule 70, or for recovery of possession de facto, also within the
prescribed period, may be availed of by the petitioners, in which proceeding the boundary dispute may be
fully threshed out.