Land Titles and Deeds Chapters 1 to 4 |Agcaoili | August December 2014|Page
Grande v. Court of Appeals
June 30, 1962 Ponente: Barrera, J. Digest Maker: J. Ragragio
SUMMARY: Owners of a parcel of land filed a suit for
quieting of title and recovery of possession over a portion of property that was added to the original parcel of land via accretion. The defendants claim ownership by acquisitive prescription, being in open, continuous and undisturbed possession of the property for over 30 years prior to the filing of this case. DOCTRINE: Alluvial deposits become part of the property to which it becomes attached, and ownership of the alluvial portion belongs to the owner of the attached property. However, this land is not automatically covered by the Torrens title of the land owned prior to the accretion, and is considered unregistered land, making it susceptible to acquisitive prescription. FACTS: Petitioners Ignacio, Eulogia, Alfonso, Eulalia, and Sofia Grande filed a suit for quieting of title and recovery of possession over a parcel of land that came about through alluvial deposits from the Cagayan River. Their original lot, defined in OCT No. 2982 (issued in 1934) provides their northeastern boundary as the Cagayan River, from a survey conducted in 1930. It is to this boundary that the accretion occurred. The Grandes allege that they have been in possession of this property until 1948, when defendants Domingo and Esteban Calalung entered the land on a claim of ownership. On the issue of filing the case only in 1958, the Grandes claim they could not acquire a copy of their title as they could not afford a surveyor.
The Calalungs, on the other hand, claim to have been in open,
continuous, and undisturbed possession of the contested property since 1933, and argue that they are now the owners of the property through acquisitive prescription, since the case was filed more than 30 years after they first took possession of the property. The Calalungs had declared the property for taxation purposes in 1944, and again in 1948 when the municipality changed its name. The Calalungs allege that the only reason the Grandes filed a case was because a survey commissioned by the Calalungs inadvertently included a part of the property covered by OCT No. 2982 - property which they readily ceded back to the Grandes in 1958. Two owners of adjoining lots, Laman and Bacani, both testified in support of the Calalungs. The RTC ruled in favor of the Grandes, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision below and upheld the Calalungs argument on acquisitive prescription. ISSUES/HELD: WON the contested property can be acquired by prescription RATIO: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Calalungs and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court acknowledged that by Article 457 of the New Civil Code and Article 366 of the Old Civil Code, the Grandes are the owners of the alluvial property. However, this does not operate to automatically include the alluvial property under OCT No. 2892. While ownership is governed by the Civil Code, imprescriptibility of registered land is provided in the registration law. As the Grandes never sought to have the alluvial property titled, it is considered unregistered land. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Court of Appeals on the possession of the Calalungs of the property since 19331934, openly, continuously and adversely, under a claim of
Land Titles and Deeds Chapters 1 to 4 |Agcaoili | August December 2014|Page
ownership up to the filing of the action in 1958. The Court pointed out that it is the provisions of Act No. 190, particularly Sec. 41, that governs this case, since the provisions of the Old Civil Code were not yet in effect. Sec. 41 provides an acquisitive prescriptive period of only ten years, meaning the Calalung acquired ownership as early as 1943-1944. DISPOSITIVE: Petition is denied, and CA decision is upheld.