You are on page 1of 12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

TodayisThursday,July07,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L19570April27,1967
JOSEV.HILARIO,JR.,plaintiffappellant,
vs.
THECITYOFMANILA,defendantappellee,
DIRECTOROFPUBLICWORKS,CITYENGINEEROFMANILA,FERNANDOBUSUEGOandEUGENIOSESE,
defendantsappellants,
MAXIMOCALALANG,intervenor
DIRECTOROFMINES,intervenor.
MaximoCalalangforplaintiffandappellant.
GregorioEjercitoandLeandroL.ArguellesfordefendantappelleeCityofManila.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforotherdefendantsandappellants.
BENGZON,J.P.,J.:
Dr. Jose Hilario was the registered owner of a large tract of land around 49 hectares in area located at
BarrioGuinayang,inSanMateo,Rizal.1 Upon his death, this property was inherited by his son, herein plaintiff
appellantJoseHilario,Jr.,towhomanewcertificateoftitle2wasissued.
During the lifetime of plaintiff's father, the Hilario estate was bounded on the western side by the San Mateo
River.3 To prevent its entry into the land, a bamboo and lumber post dike or ditch was constructed on the
northwesternside.Thiswasfurtherfortifiedbyastonewallbuiltonthenorthernside.Foryears,thesesafeguards
served their purpose. However, in 1937, a great and extraordinary flood occurred which inundated the entire
placeincludingtheneighboringbarriosandmunicipalities.Theriverdestroyedthedikeonthenorthwest,leftits
original bed and meandered into the Hilario estate, segregating from the rest thereof a lenticular place of land.
The disputed area is on the eastern side of this lenticular strip which now stands between the old riverbed site
andthenewcourse.4
In1945theU.S.Armyopenedasandandgravelplantwithinthepremises5andstartedscraping,excavatingand
extractingsoil,gravelandsandfromthenearbyareastheRiver.Theoperationseventuallyextendednorthward
intothisstripofland.Consequently,aclaimfordamageswasfiledwiththeU.S.WarDepartmentbyLuisHilario,
thethenadministratorofDr.Hilario'sestate.TheU.S.Armypaid.6In1947,theplantwasturnedovertoherein
defendantsappellantsandappelleewhotookoveritsoperationsandcontinuedtheextractionsandexcavations
ofgravelandsandfromthestripoflandalonganareaneartheRiver.
On October 22, 1949, plaintiff filed his complaint7 for injunction and damages against the defendants City
EngineerofManila,DistrictEngineerofRizal,theDirectorofPublicWorks,andEngr.Busuego,theEngineerin
chargeoftheplant.Itwasprayedthatthelatterberestrainedfromexcavating,bulldozingandextractinggravel,
sand and soil from his property and that they solidarily pay to him P5,000.00 as damages. Defendants' answer
alleged, in affirmative defense, that the extractions were made from the riverbed while counterclaiming with a
prayerforinjunctionagainstplaintiffwho,itwasclaimed,waspreventingthemfromtheiroperations.
Subsequently,theBureauofMinesandAtty.MaximoCalalangwererespectivelyallowedtojointhelitigationas
intervenors.Theformercomplainedthatthedisputedareawaswithinthebedoftheriversothatplaintiffshould
notonlybeenjoinedfrommakingextractionstherefrombutshouldalsobeorderedtopaythefeesandpenalties
forthematerialstakenbyhim.Ontheotherhand,thelatterclaimedthathewasauthorizedbyplaintifftoextract
materialsfromthedisputedareabutthisnotwithstanding,theProvincialTreasurerofRizalcollectedfromhima
sandandgravelfeewhichwouldbeanillegalexactionifthedisputedareaturnsouttobeofprivateownership.
Answerstothetwocomplaintsininterventionweredulyfiledbytheaffectedparties.
OnMarch14,1954,defendantsfiledapetitionforinjunctionagainstplaintiffandintervenorCalalanginthesame
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

1/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

case,allegingthatthelatterhavefencedoffthedisputedareaincontraventionofanagreement8 had between


thelatterandtheDirectorofPublicWorkswhereinhedefendantswereallowedtocontinuetheiroperationsbut
subjecttothefinaloutcomeofthependingsuit.ItwasprayedthatplaintiffandintervenorCalalangbeorderedto
removethefenceandallowdefendants'mentocontinuetheiroperationsunhampered.Oppositiontothispetition
was filed by the other side, with a prayer for counter injunction. On March 23, 1954, the lower court issued an
ordermaintainingthestatusquoandallowingthedefendantstocontinuetheirextractionsfromthedisputedarea
providedareceipt9inplaintiff'sfavorbeissuedforallthematerialstaken.
OnMay13,1954,plaintiffamendedhiscomplaint.ImpleadedasadditionaldefendantsweretheCityofManila,10
theProvincialTreasurerofRizal,11andEngr.EugenioSese,thenewEngineerinchargeoftheplant.Plaintiffalso
converted his claim to one purely for damages directed against the City of Manila and the Director of Public
Works,solidarily,intheamountofP1,000,000.00,asthecostofmaterialstakensince1949,aswellasthoseto
beextractedtherefromuntildefendantsstoptheiroperations.
Cametheseparateamendedanswersoftheseveraldefendants.ManilaCitydeniedownershipoftheplantand
claimedthattheCityEngineer,actedmerelyasadeputyofthePublicWorksDirector.Theotherdefendants12put
up, as special defense, the agreement between plaintiff and the Public Works Director, and asserted a P1.2
millioncounterclaimfordamagesagainstplaintiff.Therest13renewedthesamedefensethatthedisputedarea
waspartofthepublicdomain,sinceitwassituatedontheriverbanks.
OnNovember3,1954,thedefendantCityEngineerofManilafiledapetitiontodelimittheareaofexcavationand
askedthelowercourttoauthorizehismentoextendtheiroperationswestofthecamachiletreeinthedisputed
area. This met vigorous opposition from plaintiff and intervenor Calalang. On May 27, 1955, the petition was
denied.
Finally, on December 21, 1956, the lower court rendered its decision on the merits. The dispositive portion
provided:14
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered against the defendants City of Manila and the Director of
PublicWorks,topaysolidarilythehereinplaintiffthesumofP376,989.60,asthecostofgravelandsand
extracted from plaintiff's land, plus costs. Judgment is likewise hereby rendered against the defendant
Provincial Treasurer of Rizal, ordering him to reimburse to intervenor Maximo Calalang the amount of
P236.80 representing gravel fees illegally collected. Finally, defendants herein are perpetually enjoined
from extracting any sand or gravel from plaintiff's property which is twofifths northern portion of the
disputedarea.
Itissoordered.
Noneofthepartieslitigantsseemedsatisfiedwiththisdecisionandtheyallsoughtareconsiderationofthesame.
OnAugust30,1957,thelowercourtresolvedthemotionstoreconsiderwithanorder,thedispositiveportionof
whichprovided:15
WHEREFORE, the court hereby denies the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff and intervenor
Calalang dismisses the complaint with respect to defendant City of Manila holds that the northern two
fifths portion of the area in controversy belongs to the plaintiff with right to the immediate possession
thereofandherebyenjoinsthedefendantsandintervenorBureauofMinestovacatethesameandtostop
from extracting gravel thereon. The Court however hereby dismisses the case against the defendant
BureauofPublicWorksanditsagentsandemployeesinsofarastheclaimformoneyisconcernedwithout
prejudicetoplaintiffstakingsuchactionashemaydeempropertoenforcesaidclaimagainsttheproper
partyinaccordancewithlaw.
Itissoordered.
Stillunsatisfied,plaintiffandintervenorCalalangfiledasecondmotionforreconsideration.Thelowercourtstood
firmonitsrulingofAugust30,1957.16
Hence,thisappeal.17ThedefendantsDirectorofPublicWorks,CityEngineerofManila,andEngrs.Busuegoand
Sesehavealsoappealedfromthedeclarationmadebythelowercourtthatthenortherntwofifthsofthedisputed
areabelongstoplaintiffHilario.
The parties herein have presented before this Court mixed questions of law and fact for resolution and
adjudication. Foremost among them is this legal query when a river, leaving its old bed, changes its original
courseandopensanewonethroughprivateproperty,wouldthenewriverbanksliningsaidcoursebeofpublic
ownershipalso?18
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

2/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

The defendants answer in the affirmative. They claim that under the Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, the
riverbanks are, by definition, considered part of the riverbed which is always of public ownership. On the other
hand,plaintiffwouldhavethequestionresolvedinthenegative.Hemaintainsthatnotallriverbanksareofpublic
ownershipbecause:(1)Art.372oftheoldCivilCode,whichgovernsthisparticularcase,speaksonlyofthenew
bednothingissaidaboutthenewbanks(2)Art.73oftheLawofWaterswhichdefinesthephrase"banksofa
river" cannot be applied in the case at bar in conjunction with the other articles cited by defendants since that
articleappliesonlytobanksofnaturalriverbedsandthepresent,Riverisnotinitsnaturalbedand(3)ifallbanks
wereofpublicownership,thenArt.553oftheoldCivilCodeandthesecondsentence,firstparagraphofArt.73
oftheLawofWaterscanneverhaveanyapplication.
SincethechangeinthecourseoftheRivertookplacein1937,longbeforethepresentCivilCodetookeffect,19
thequestionbeforeUsshouldbedeterminedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheoldCivilCodeandthoseof
theLawofWatersofAugust3,1866.
We agree with defendants that under the cited laws, all riverbanks are of public ownership including those
formedwhenariverleavesitsoldbedandopensanewcoursethroughaprivateestate.Art.339oftheoldCivil
Codeisveryclear.Withoutanyqualifications,itprovides:
Propertyofpublicownershipis
1.Thatdevotedtopublicuse,suchasroads,canals,rivers,torrents,portsandbridgesconstructedbythe
State,riverbanks,shores,roadsteads,andthatofasimilarcharacter(Emphasissupplied)
Moreover, as correctly contended by defendants, the riverbank is part of the riverbed. Art. 73 of the Law of
Waterswhichdefinesthephrase"banksofariver"provides:
Bythephrase"banksofariver"isunderstoodthoselateralstripsorzonesofitsbedwhicharewashedby
thestreamonlyduringsuchhighfloodsasdonotcauseinundations....(Emphasissupplied)
Theusetheofwords"ofitsbed[desusalveos]"clearlyindicatestheintentofthelawtoconsiderthebanks
foralllegalpurposesaspartoftheriverbed.Thelowercourtalsoruledcorrectlythatthebanks
oftheRiverarepaintofitsbed.20Sinceundeniablyallbedsofriversareofpublicownership,21 it follows
thatthebanks,whichformpartofthem,arealsoofpublicownership.
Plaintiff'scontentionthatArts.70and73oftheLawofWaterscannotapplybecauseArt.312oftheoldCivilCode
mentionsonlythenewbedbutomitsthebanks,andthatsaidarticlesonlyapplytonaturalmeaningoriginal
bedandbanksisuntenable.Art.70,whichdefinesbedsofriversandcreeks,provides:
The natural bed or channel of a creek or river is the ground covered by its waters during the highest
[ordinary]floods.22(Emphasissupplied)
Art.372oftheoldCivilCodewhichprovidesthat
Whenever a navigable or floatable river changes its course from natural causes and opens a new bed
throughaprivateestate,thenewbedshallbeofpublicownership,buttheowneroftheestateshallrecover
it in the event that the waters leave it dry again either naturally or as the result of any work legally
authorizedforthispurpose.(Emphasissupplied)
didnothavetomentionthebanksbecauseitwasunnecessary.Thenatureofthebanksalwaysfollowsthat
ofthebedandtherunningwatersoftheriver.Ariverisacompoundconceptconsistingofthreeelements:
(1)therunningwaters,(2)thebedand(3)thebanks.23Alltheseconstitutetheriver.Americanauthorities
areinaccordwiththisview:
'River'consistsofwater,abedandbanks.24
A"river"consistsofwater,abedandbanks,theseseveralpartsconstitutingtheriver,thewholeriver.Itisa
compoundideaitcannotexistwithoutallitspaints.Evaporatethewater,andyouhaveadryhollow.Ifyou
couldsinkthebed,insteadofariver,youwouldhaveafathomlessgulf.Removethebanks,andyouhave
aboundlessflood.25
Sinceariverisbutonecompoundconcept,itshouldhaveonlyonenature,i.e.,itshouldeitherbetotallypublicor
completelyprivate.Andsinceriversareofpublicownership,26itisimplicitthatallthethreecomponentelements
beofthesamenaturealso.AsManresacommented:
RealmentenopuedeimaginarseunriosinalveoysinriberadesuertequealdecirelCodigoCivilquelos
rios son de dominio publico, parece que debe ir implicito el dominio publico de anquellos tres elementos
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

3/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

queintegranelrio.27
However,todispelallpossibledoubts,thelawexpresslymakesallthreeelementspublic.Thus,riverbanksand
beds are public under Arts. 339 and 407, respectively, of the Code, while the flowing waters are declared so
underArt.33,par.2oftheLawofWatersof1866.
Articles70,72and73oftheLawofWatersspeakofnaturalbedsandtheirbanks.Plaintiffnowequatestheterm
"natural"withtheword"original"sothatachangeinthecourseofariverwouldrenderthosearticlesinapplicable.
However, the premise is incorrect. Diccionario De La Real Academia Espaola defines the word "natural" as
follows:
NATURAL perteneciente a la naturaleza o conforme a la calidad o propriedad de las cosas nativo,
originariodeunpuebloonacionhechoconverdad,niartificio,mezclanicomposicionalgunaingenuoy
sindoblezensumododeprocederdicezetambiendelascosasqueimitaralanaturalezaconpropiedad
regularyquecomunmentesucede,yporeso,facilmentecreiblequeseproduceporsolaslasfuerzasde
lanaturaleza,comocontrapuestoasobrenaturalymilagroso,(Emphasissupplied)
"Natural"isnotmadesynonymousto"original"or"priorcondition".Onthecontrary,evenifarivershouldleaveits
original bed so long as it is due to the force of nature, the new course would still fall within the scope of the
definitionprovidedabove.Hence,thelawmusthaveusedtheword"natural"onlybecauseitisinkeepingwiththe
ordinarynatureandconceptofariveralwaystohaveabedandbanks.
Plaintiff'sthirdpointisnotlightlytobetaken.Indeed,itwouldseempossibletoacquireprivateownershipofbanks
underArt.553oftheoldCivilCodewhichprovides:
Lasriberasdelosrios,auncuandoseandedominioprivado,estansujetasentodasuextensionyensus
margenes, en una zona de tres metros, a la servidumbre de uso publico en interes general de la
navegacion,laflotacion,lapescayelsalvamento.(Emphasissupplied).
AndplaintiffisnotwithoutjurisprudentialbackingforinCommonwealthvs.Gungun,28itwassaidthatthe
private ownership of the banks was not prohibited. His point is then neatly brought home with the
proposition that it is precisely when a river changes its course and opens a new bed through a private
estatethattherecanbeprivateownershipofthebanks.
AstudyofthehistoryofArt.553willhoweverrevealthatitwasneverintendedtoauthorizetheprivateacquisition
ofriverbanks.ThatcouldnothavebeenlegallypossibleinviewofthelegislativepolicyclearlyenunciatedinArt.
339 of the Code that all riverbanks were of public ownership. The article merely recognized and preserved the
vested rights of riparian owners who, because of prior law or custom, were able to acquire ownership over the
banks.ThiswaspossibleundertheSietePartidaswhichwaspromulgatedin1834yet.29UnderLaw6,Title28,
Partidas3,thebanksofriversbelongedtotheriparianowners,followingtheRomanLawrule.30Inotherwords,
theywereprivatelyownedthen.Butsubsequentlegislationradicallychangedthisrule.BytheLawofWatersof
August3,1866,riverbanksbecameofpublicownership,albeitimpliedlyonlybecauseconsideredpartofthebed
whichwaspublicbystatutorydefinition.31Butthislaw,whileexpresslyrepealingallpriorinconsistentlaws,
leftundisturbedallvestedrightsthenexisting.32Soprivatelyownedbanksthencontinuedtobesounderthenew
law,buttheyweresubjectedbythelattertoaneasementforpublicuse.AsArt.73provides:
Seentiendenporriberasdeunriolasfajasozonislateralesdesusalveosquesolamentesorbaadaspor
las aguas en las crecidas que no causan inundacion. El dominio privado de las riberas esta suieto a la
survidumbredetresmetrosdezonaparausopublico,enelinterestgeneraldelanavegacion,laflotacion,
lapescayelsalvamento....(Emphasissupplied).
1 w p h 1 . t

Thiswasperhapsthereconciliationeffectedbetweentheprivateownershipofthebanks,ontheonehand,and
the policy of the law on the other hand, to devote all banks to public use.33 The easement would preserve the
private ownership of the banks and still effectuate the policy of the law. So, the easement in Art. 73 only
recognized and preserved existing privately owned banks it did not authorize future private appropriation of
riverbanks.
The foregoing observation is confirmed by the still subsequent Law of Waters of June 13, 1879, which was
principallybasedontheLawofAugust3,1865.34Art.36ofthenewlaw,whichwasasubstantialreenactmentof
Art.73oftheLawofWatersofAugust3,1866,reads:
Lasriberas,auncuandoseandedominioprivadoenvirtuddeantigueleyodecostumbre, estan sujetas
entodasuextensionlasmargenesenunazonadetresmetros,alaservidumbredeusopublicoeninteres
generaldelanavegacion,laflotacionlapescayelsalvamento....(Emphasissupplied)
Thenewlawalsoaffirmedthepublicownershipofriversandtheirbeds,andthetreatmentofthebanksaspartof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

4/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

thebed.35 But nowhere in the law was there any provision authorizing the private appropriation of the banks.
Whatitmerelydidwastorecognizethefactthatatthattimetherewereprivatelyownedbankspursuanttothe
SietePartidas,andtoencumberthesewithaneasementforpublicuse.
However, the public nature of riverbanks still obtained only by implication. But with the promulgation of the Civil
Codeof1889,thisfactwasfinallymadeexplicitinArt.339thereof.Riverbanksweredeclaredaspublicproperty
since they were destined for public use. And the first paragraph of Art. 36 of the Law of Waters of 1879 was
substantiallyreenactedinArt.553oftheCode.36Hence,thisarticlemustalsobeunderstoodnotasauthorizing
the private acquisition of riverbanks but only as recognizing the vested titles of riparian owners who already
ownedthebanks.
Theauthority,then,fortheprivateownershipofthebanksisneithertheoldCivilCodenortheLawofWatersof
1866buttheSietePartidas.Unfortunately,plaintiffcannotinvokeit.Law6,Title28,Partida3,whichprovidesfor
private ownership of banks, ceased to be of force in this jurisdiction as of 1871 yet when the Law of Waters of
August 3, 1866, took effect.37 Since the change in the course of the River took place in 1937, the new banks
whichwereformedcouldnothavebeensubjectedtotheprovisionsoftheSietePartidaswhichhadalreadybeen
supersededbythen.
Coming to the factual issues: both parties assail the conclusion made by the lower court that only the northern
twofifthsofthedisputedarearemainedasplaintiff'sprivateproperty.Thisconclusionwasapparentlybasedon
thefindingsthattheportionwherericeandcornwerefound38intheocularinspectionofJune15,1951,wason
the northern twofifths of the disputed area that this cannot be a part of the bed because of the existence of
vegetation which could not have grown underwater, and that this portion is manmade. However, there is no
evidentiary basis for these findings. The area indicated by Nos. 1 and 2 in Exh. D1 where no excavations had
beenmade, appears to be more on the southwestern onefourth of the disputed area. The American cases39
citedbythelowercourtcannotapplyhere.OurLawofWaters,indefining"beds"andconsidersthelatterispart
oftheformer.Thosecitedcasesdidnotinvolveasimilarstatutoryprovision.Thatplantscananddogrowonthe
banks which otherwise could not have grown in the bed which is constantly subjected to the flow of the waters
provesthedistinctionbetween"beds"and"banks"inthephysicalorder.However,Wearedealingwiththelegal
orderwherelegaldefinitionsprevail.Andapartfromtheseconsiderations,Wealsonotetheconsiderabledifficulty
whichwouldattendtheexecutionoftherulingofthelowercourt.Thelatterfailedtoindicatefixedmarkersfrom
which an exact delimitation of the boundaries of the portion could be made. This flaw is conducive to future
litigations.
Plaintiff's theory is that the disputed area, although covered at times by flood waters, cannot be considered as
withinthebanksoftheRiverbecause:(1)suchfloodsareonlyaccidental,and(2)eveniftheyareregular,the
flooding of the area is due to the excavations and extractions made by defendants which have caused the
widening of the channel.40 Defendants claim, however, that the area is always covered by the normal yearly
floodsandthatthewideningofthechannelisduetonaturalcauses.
Thereisagravelpit41locatedalongthewestsideoftheRiver.Thisisabout500meterslong.42Agreaterpartof
thispitoccupiesaportionofthestripoflandthatwasslicedbytheRiverfromtherestoftheHilarioestate.As
showninExhs.DandD1,thisstripoflandisthatwesternsegmentoftheHilarioestateboundedonthewestby
thesamelinesconnectingstakes23through27,whichformpartofthewesternboundaryoftheestate,andon
theeast,boundedbythewesternwaterlineoftheRiver.
Now,thedisputedarea,generallyspeaking,43isonlythatpartofthegravelpitwhichiswithinthestripofland.Its
northerntipisthatpointwherethesocalled"secondarybank"lineintersectsthewestRiverwaterlineupnorthits
southern boundary is along the line connecting stakes 23 and 24. From these two ends, the disputed area
measures approximately 250 meters long. The eastern boundary is the western River waterline at low tide and
thewesternboundaryisthe"secondarybank"line,alinepassingnearstake24andrunningalmostparalleltothe
lineconnectingstakes25and26.Aroundthelaterpartof1949,thedisputedareawasabout150to160meters
wide.44Thisincreasedtoabout175to180metersbythelaterpartof1950.AndbyJanuary,1953,thedistance
fromthe"secondarybank"linetothewestwaterlinewasabout230meters.45
ThisincreasingwidthofthedisputedareacouldbeattributedtothegradualmovementoftheRivertotheeast.
Since it entered into the Hilario estate, the River has not stayed put.46 Vicente Vicente, plaintiff's witness
declared47thataftertheRiverchangeditscoursein1937,thedistancebetweentheoldandthenewriversites
wasabout100meters.Exh.D2showsthatin1943,thesouthendoftheRiverwasabout5meterssoutheastof
stake24.48HonoratoSta.Maria,anotherwitnessforplaintiff,indicatedtheflowofthiscoursewithabluelinein
Exh.D1.49Thisbluelineisabout100metersfromthelineconnectingstakes25and26,whichwasalsotheeast
boundary of the old River.50 Around 1945 to 1949, the River was about 193 meters51 east of this line. This
measurement is based on the testimonies of two defense witnesses52 and stated that during that period, the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

5/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

River passed along the Excavated Area and the New Accretion Area53 sites, as shown in Exh. 54. By the later
part of 1949 up to November 1950, the west waterline was from 248 to 270 meters54 east of the aforesaid
boundaryline.AndfinallyinJanuary,1953,basedonthescaleinExh.3Calalang,thewestwaterlinewasfrom
300to305metersawayalready.Hence,from100metersin1937,theRiverhadmovedto305meterseastward
in1953.
There are two questions to be resolved here. First, where on the strip of land are the lateral borders of the
westernriverbank?Andsecond,wherehavedefendantsmadetheirextractions?
Anentthefirstquestion,thekeyissuppliedbyArt.73oftheLawofWaterswhichdefinesthelimitsofbanksof
rivers
Bythephrase"banksofariver"isunderstoodthoselateralstripsorzonesofitsbedwhicharewashedby
thestreamonlyduringsuchhighfloodsasdonotcauseininundations....(Emphasissupplied)
The farthest extremity of the bank on the west side would, therefore, be that lateral line or strip which is
reached by the waters during those high floods that do not cause inundations. In other words, the extent
reachedbythewaterswhentheRiverisathightide.
However,thereisadifferencebetweenthetopographyofthetwosidesimmediatelyadjoiningtheRiver.Theline
indicatedas"primarybank"55 in Exh. 3Calalang, which is on the east, is about 3 meters high and has a steep
graderightattheedgewhereitdropsalmostverticallytothewatercourselevel.Theprecipicehere,whichisnear
theeastwaterline,isveryeasilydetectible.Buttheoppositesidehasnosuchsteepactivity.Infact,itisalmostflat
withthebedoftheRiver,especiallynearthewateredge,whereitisabout30to50cms.highonly.Butitgradually
slopes up to a height of about 2 to 2 meters along the line indicated as "secondary bank", which is quite far
from the waterline. This "bank" line is about 1 meters higher than the level of the gravel pit and there are
erosions here. This is about 175 meters west from the November 1950 waterline, and about 100 meters west
fromthecamachiletree.56
Duringthedryseason,thewaterleveloftheRiverisquitelowaboutkneedeeponly.However,duringtherainy
season, the River generally becomes swollen, and the waterlevel rises, reaching up to the neck.57 However,
considering the peculiar characteristics of the two sides banking the river, the rise in the waterlevel would not
have the same effect on the two sides. Thus, on the east, the water would rise vertically, until the top of the
"primary bank" is reached, but on the west, there would be a lowangled inclined rise, the water covering more
ground until the "secondary bank" line is reached. In other words, while the water expansion on the east is
vertical,thatonthewestismoreorlesslateral,orhorizontal.
Theevidencealsoshowsthattherearetwotypesoffloodsintheareaduringtherainyseason.58Oneistheso
called"ordinary"flood,whentheriverisswollenbuttheflowingwateriskeptwithintheconfines,ofthe"primary"
and "secondary" banks. This occurs annually, about three to four times during the period. Then there is the
"extraordinary"flood,whenthewatersoverflowbeyondthesaidbanks,andeveninundatethesurroundingareas.
However, this flood does not happen regularly. From 1947 to 1955, there were only three such floods.59 Now,
consideringthatthe"ordinary"floodeasilycoverthewestsidesinceanyverticalriseofthewaterlevelonthe
eastwouldnecessarilybeaccompaniedbyalateralwaterexpansiononthewestthe"inundations"whichthe
lawmentionsmustbethosecausedbythe"extraordinary"floodswhichreachandoverflowbeyondboth"primary"
and "secondary" banks. And since the "primary" bank is higher than the "secondary" bank, it is only when the
formerisreachedandoverflowedthattherecanbeaninundationofthebanksthetwobanks.Thequestion
therefore, may be stated thus: up to what extent on the west side do the highest flood waters reach when the
"primary"bankisnotoverflowed?
Defendantshavepresentedseveralwitnesseswhotestifiedontheextentreachedbytheordinaryfloodwaters.
DavidRoss,abulldozeroperatorattheplantsince1945,testified60thatfrom1945to1949,whentheRiverwas
still passing along the site where the camachile tree is located, the annual flood waters reached up to the
"secondary bank" line. These floods usually took from 3 to 5 days to recede, during which time their work was
suspended. Corroboration is supplied by Macario Suiza, a crane operator in the plant since 1945, and by Fidel
Villafuerte,aplantemployeesince1946.Suizastated61thatfrom1947to1949,theareaenclosedwithintheblue
linesandmarkedasExh.54BwhichincludestheNewAccretionAreawasalwayscoveredbywaterwhenit
rained hard and they had to stop work temporarily. The western extremity of this area reaches up to the
"secondarybank"line.Villafuertestated62thatintheordinaryfloodswhenthewaterwasjust50cm.belowthe
topofthe"primarybank",thewaterswouldgobeyondthecamachiletreebyasmuchas100meterswestward
andjustaboutreachthe"secondarybank"line.Furthercorroborationissuppliedbyplaintiff'sownevidence.Exh.
1Calalangstatesthatfrom1947to1949,basedonthecasualobservationsmadebygeologistDavidCruz,the
areabetweenthe"primary"and"secondary"bankswerealwayscoveredbythenoninundatingordinaryfloods.
From1950to1952,WehavethetestimonyofRosswhostated63thattherewerestillfloodsbuttheywerenotas
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

6/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

biganymore,exceptonefloodin1952,sincetheRiverhadalreadymovedtotheeast.Engr.RicardoPacheco,
whomadeasurveyofthedisputedareainNovember1952,andwhoconductedactualobservationsoftheextent
of the water reach when the river was swollen, testified64 that the noninundating flood regularly reached up to
thebluezigzaglinealongthedisputedarea,asshowninExh.ICityEngineerManila.Thisblueline,atthepoint
where it intersects line BB,65 is about 140 meters west of the waterline and about 20 meters west of the
camachile tree. His testimony was based on three floods66 which he and his men actually recorded.
CorroborationisagainsuppliedbyExh.1Calalang.AccordingtoCruz'report,thefloodsin1950and1951barely
covered the disputed area. During the normal days of the rainy season, the waters of the swollen river did not
reachthehigherportionsofthegravelpitwhichusedtobesubmerged.Onecauseforthiswasthelesseramount
ofrainfallfrom1949to1951.ButtwofloodsoccurredfromOctober16to28,1952,whichoverflowedthewhole
areaandinundatedthebanks.From1953to1955,whentheRiverwasfartherawaytotheeast,thefloodwaters
stillcoveredthewestside.67Testifyingontheextentreachedbythewaterduringtherainyseasonin1954,Ross
stated68 that it reached up to the camachile tree only. The last and latest data comes from Engr. Magbayani
Leao,theEngineerinchargeoftheplantfromAugust1954.Hetestified69thatasofDecember1955,whenthe
disputedareawasunderwater,thewaterreachwasabout20metersorlesstotheeastfromthecamachiletree.
From all the foregoing, it can be safely concluded: (1) that from 1945 to 1949, the west bank of the River
extendedwestwarduptothe"secondarybank"line(2)thatfrom1950to1952,thisbankhadmoved,withthe
River,totheeastitslateralbordersrunningalongalinejust20meterswestofthecamachiletreeand(3)that
from 1953 to 1955, the extremities of the west bank further receded eastward beyond the camachile tree, until
theylayjustabout20meterseastofsaidtree.
To counteract the testimonies of the defense witnesses, plaintiff presented two rebuttal witnesses70 who told a
somewhat different story. However, their testimonies are not convincing enough to offset the dovetailing
testimoniesofthedefensewitnesseswhoweremuchbetterqualifiedandacquaintedwiththeactualsitusofthe
floods.Andsaiddefensewitnesseswerecorroboratedbyplaintiffs'ownevidencewhichcontradictstheaforesaid
rebuttalwitnesses.
However, plaintiff maintains that the floods which cover the area in question are merely accidental and hence,
underArt.77oftheLawofWaters,71 and following the ruling in Government vs. Colegio de San Jose,72 he is
deemed not to have lost the inundated area. This is untenable. Plaintiff's own evidence73 shows that the river
floodswithannualregularityduringtherainyseason.Thesefloodscanhardlybecalled"accidental."TheColegio
de San Jose case is not exactly in point. What was mainly considered there was Art. 74 of the Law of Waters
relatingtolakes,pondsandpools.Inthecaseatbar,noneoftheseisinvolved.
Also untenable is plaintiff's contention that the regular flooding of the disputed area was due to the continuous
extraction of materials by defendants which had lowered the level of said area and caused the consequent
wideningofthechannelandtheriveritself.Theexcavationsandextractionsofmaterials,evenfromtheAmerican
period,havebeenmadeonlyonthestripoflandwestoftheRiver.74Underthe"followingthenatureofthings"
argumentadvancedbyplaintiff,theRivershouldhavemovedwestward,wherethelevelofthegroundhadbeen
lowered. But the movement has been in the opposite direction instead. Therefore, it cannot be attributed to
defendants' operation. Moreover, plaintiff's own evidence indicates that the movement eastward was all due to
natural causes. Thus, Exh. 1Calalang shows that the movement eastward of the channel by as much as 31
meters, from 1950 to 1953, was due to two typhoons which caused the erosion of the east bank and the
depositingofmaterialsonthewestsidewhichincreaseditslevelfromasmuchas.93to2meters.
Plaintiff'sassertionthatthedefendantsalsocausedtheunnaturalwideningoftheRiverisunfounded.Relianceis
made on the finding by the lower court that in 1943, the River was only 60 meters wide as shown in Exh. D2,
whereasin1950,itwasalready140meterswideasshowninExh.D.However,Exh.D2onlyshowsthewidthof
theRivernearthesouthwesternboundaryoftheHilarioestate.Itdoesnotindicatehowwideitwasintheother
parts, especially up north. And Eligio Lorenzo, plaintiff's own witness, admitted75 on crossexamination that the
widthofthenewriverwasnotuniform.ThisisconfirmedbyExhs.DandD1whichshowthatthenewriverwas
widerbyasmuchas50%upnorththanitwasdownsouth.The140meterdistanceinExh.Dwasatthewidest
partupnorthwhereasdownsouth,nearthemouthoftheBulobokRiver,itwasonly70meterswide.Lastly,the
scale in Exh. 3Calalang will show that in January 1953, the River, near the same point also, was less than 50
meterswide.
Theonlyremainingquestionnowistodetermineifthedefendantshavereallyconfinedtheiroperationswithinthe
banks of the River as alleged by them. To resolve this, We have to find out from what precise portion in the
disputed area the defendants have extracted gravel and sand since they did not extract indiscriminately from
within the entire area. None of the parties' briefs were very helpful but the evidence on record discloses that
defendantsmadetheirextractionsonlywithinspecifiedareasduringdefiniteperiods.
From1947totheearlypartof1949,thedefendantsconductedtheiroperationsonlyintheNewAccretionArea
alonganarrowlongitudinalzonecontiguoustothewatercoursethen.Thiszone,markedasExh.2CityEngineer
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

7/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

Manila,isaboutone(1)km.longandextendsnorthwarduptopt.50.35inExh.54.However,noextractionsnor
excavations were undertaken west of this zone, i.e., above the "temporary bank" line.76 These facts are
corroborated by plaintiff's witnesses. That the extractions were near the river then finds support in Vicente's
testimony77whileLeonAngelesandMrs.SaludHilarioconfirmthefactthatdefendantshavenotgonewestward
beyondthe"temporarybank"line.78Thislineislocatedeastofthe"secondarybank"line,thelateralextremityof
thewestbankthen.
In the later part of 1949, plaintiff prohibited the defendants from extracting along the New Accretion Area and
constructed a fence across the same. This forced the defendants to go below southeast of the "Excavated
Area"andtheNewAccretionAreasitesinExh.54.79Engr.Busuego,testifying80 in 1952, indicated their are of
extractionasthatenclosedwithinthereddottedlineinExh.D1whichliesonthesouthendofthestripofland.
Only a small portion of the southeastern boundary of the disputed area is included. The ocular inspection
conducted on June 15, 1951, confirms this.81 Exh. 4Calalang shows the total amount of materials taken from
withintheareafrom1949to1951.82Thus,from1950upto1953,althoughthedefendantswereabletocontinue
their operations because of the agreement between the plaintiff and the Director of Public Works,83 they were
confinedonlytothesoutheasternportionofthedisputedarea.Ontheotherhand,thelateralextremitiesofthe
westbankthenranalongalineabout20meterswestofthecamachiletreeintheNewAccretionArea.
From 1954 to 1955, defendants' area of operation was still farther near of the New Accretion Area. They were
workingwithinaconfinedareaalongthewestwaterline,thenorthernandwesternboundariesofwhichwere20
meters away east from the camachile tree.84 Ross indicated85 this zone in Exh. 54 as that portion on the
southernendofthedisputedareabetweenthebluelinesgoingthroughthewords"MarikinaRiverBed"andthe
red zigzag line indicating the watercourse then. Engr. Leao even stated, 86 that they got about 80% of the
materialsfromtheriveritselfandonly20%fromthedrybed.ThesandandgravelcoveredbyExhs.LLtoLL55
werealltakenfromhere.TheforegoingfactsarenotonlycorroboratedbyMrs.Hilario87butevenadmittedbythe
plaintiffinhisopposition88todefendants'petitiontoextendtheirareaofoperationwestofthecamachiletree.And
becausetheirpetitionwasdenied,defendantscouldnot,andhavenot,89gonebeyondthelaterallineabout20
meterseastfromsaidtree,whichhasalreadybeenestablishedasthelateralextremityofthewestbankduring
theperiod.
It appears sufficiently established, therefore, that defendants have not gone beyond the receding western
extremities of the west riverbank. They have confined their extraction of gravel and sand only from within the
banksoftheriverwhichconstitutepartofthepublicdomainwhereintheyhadtherighttooperate.Plaintiffhas
not presented sufficient evidence that defendants have gone beyond the limits of the west bank, as previously
established,andhaveinvadedhisprivateestate.Hecannot,therefore,recoverfromthem.
Asapartingargument,plaintiffcontendsthattodeclaretheentiredisputedareaaspartoftheriverbankswould
betantamounttoconvertingabouthalfofhisestatetopublicownershipwithoutjustcompensation.Heevenadds
thatdefendantshavealreadyexhaustedthesupplyinthatareaandhaveunjustlyprofitedathisexpense.These
arguments,however,donotdetractfromtheaboveconclusions.
Firstofall,Wearenotdeclaringthattheentirechannel,i.e.,allthatspacebetweenthe"secondarybank"lineand
the "primary bank" line, has permanently become part of the riverbed. What We are only holding is that at the
timethedefendantsmadetheirextractions,theexcavationswerewithintheconfinesoftheriverbanksthen.The
"secondarybank"linewasthewesternlimitofthewestbankaround1945to1949only.By1955,thishadgreatly
recededtothelinejust20meterseastofthecamachiletreeintheNewAccretionArea.Allthatspacetothewest
ofsaidrecedingline90wouldstillbepartofplaintiff'spropertyandalsowhateverportionadjoiningtheriveris,
atpresent,nolongerreachedbythenoninundatingordinaryfloods.
Secondly,itisnotcorrecttosaythatplaintiffwouldbedeprivedofhispropertywithoutanycompensationatall.
UnderArt.370oftheoldCivilCode,theabandonedbedoftheoldriverbelongstotheriparianownerseitherfully
or in part with the other riparian owners. And had the change occurred under the Civil Code of the Philippines,
plaintiffwouldevenbeentitledtoalloftheoldbedinproportiontotheareahehaslost.91
And,lastly,defendantscannotbeaccusedofunjustlyprofitingatplaintiff'sexpense.Theywerenotresponsiblefor
the shifting of the River. It was due to natural causes for which no one can be blamed. And defendants were
extractingfrompublicpropertythen,underproperauthorization.Thegovernment,throughthedefendants,may
havebeenenrichedbychance,butnotunjustly.
ConsideringtheconclusionsWehavethusreached,theotherquestionsinvolvedintheremainingassignmentsof
errorsparticularlythoseaproposthedoctrineofstateimmunityfromsuitandtheliabilityofdefendantCityof
Manilaarerenderedmoot.
Wherefore,thedecisionandordersappealedfromareherebysetasideandanotherjudgmentisherebyentered
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

8/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

asfollows:
(1)DefendantsCityofManilaandtheDirectorofPublicWorksandhisagentsandemployeesarehereby
absolved from liability to plaintiff since they did not extract materials from plaintiff's property but from the
publicdomain.
(2)Allthatportionwithinthestripoflandinquestion,startingfromthelinerunningparalleltothewestern
waterlineoftheriverandtwentymeterseastfromthecamachiletreeintheNewAccretionAreameasured
alonglineAAinExhs.3Calalang,13and54,andgoingtothewestuptothewesternboundariesofthe
Hilarioestate,isherebydeclaredasnotpartofthepublicdomainandconfirmedaspartofplaintiff'sprivate
property.Nocosts.Soordered.
Concepcion,C.J.,Reyes,J.B.L.,Dizon,Regala,Makalintal,Zaldivar,SanchezandCastro,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Theboundariesofthisproperty[Lot89J2]arefullyshowninthemapsmarkedasExhs.D,D1andD3.
2T.C.T.No.14994(Exh.A1).
3SeeExh.D3.AlsoknownastheMarikinaRiverforshort,referredtoas"theRiver".
4Thisstripoflandismarkedwiththered"X"inExh.D.
5See Exh. 1M City Engr. Manila Pacheco, Session of Oct. 13, 1955, t.s.n., p. 160 Busuego, Session of

Jan.30,1951t.s.n.pp.4041.
6ThisfactwasadmittedbyAtty.Calalang,plaintiffscounsel,duringthecourseoftrial(SessionofMay25,

1955,t.s.n.,p.21).
7CivilCaseNo.959intheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal.
8Exhs.HandIiseealsoRecordonAppeal,pp.6872.
9Thetenorofthereceipt,asapprovedbytheCourt,isasfollows:"ThisistocertifythattheCityofManila

hastakencubicmetersofgravelandsandfromthepropertyofJoseV.Hilario,Jr.,atSanMateo,Rizal,
subjecttothecourtofCivilCaseNo.959oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal.
10Because, according to plaintiff, the evidence on record then showed that the plant was owned and

operatedbyit.
11BecauseasrepresentativeoftheDirectorofMines,hehadbeencollecting,thequestionedgravelfees.
12TheCityEngineerofManila,theDirectorofPublicWork,Engr.BusuegoandEngr.Sese.
13TheProvincialTreasurerandtheDistrictEngineerofRizal,andtheDirectorofMines.
14RecordonAppeal,p.182.
15RecordonAppeal,pp.242243.
16OrderofOct.21,1957,whichdeniedthesecondmotionforreconsideration(RecordonAppeal,p.250).
17TheappealwasoriginallydirectedtotheCourtofAppeals.However,thatCourtcertifiedthecasetoUs

sincetheamountinvolvedfallswithinOurexclusiveappellatejurisdiction.
18Thereisnodisputeregardingthenewbed.Art.372oftheoldCivilCodeisveryclearaboutthat.
19TheCivilCodeofthePhilippinestookeffectonAug.30,1950.Laravs.DelRosario,50O.G.1975.
20RecordonAppeal,p.170.
21Arts.372and407,oldCivilCode.
22TheoriginalSpanishtextreads"Alveoocaucenaturaldeunarroyoyrioeselterrenoquecubrensus
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

9/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

aguasenlasmayorcrecidasordinarias."(Emphasissupplied)
23Manresa,CodigoCivilEspaol,6th,ed.,p.75.
24Gavit'sAdmr'svs.Chambers,3Ohio498Stanvs.Child,N.Y.20Wend.14937AWordsandPhrases

433.
25Statevs.Richardson,72So.984,140La.32937AWordsandPhrases493.
26OldCivilCode,Arts.339and407.
27Manresa,Op.Cit.75.
2870 Phil. 194 see however the strong dissent of Mr. Justice Imperial, at 198, and, joined by Justice

Moran,concurredonothergrounds,leavingnoprevailingmajorityonthispoint.
29Tolentino,CivilCodeofthePhils.,1960ed.,p.5.
306 Scaevola, Codigo Civil Comentado, 4th ed., p. 187 Alcubilla, I Diccionario de la Adm. Espaola, 5th

ed.,p.381SandarInstitutesofJustinian,1stAm.ed.,1876,p.159.
31Art.73,LawofWatersofAugust3,1866.
32"Art.299.Theprovisionsofthislawarewithoutprejudice,torightslegallyacquiredpriortoitspublication

also without prejudice to the private dominion enjoyed by proprietors of the waters of irrigation diches,
fountainsorsprings,byvirtueofwhichtheyenjoy,sellorexchangethesaidwatersasprivateproperty."
"Art.300.Alllaws,royaldecrees,royalorders,andotherlegislationrelatingtomatterscomprisedin
this law and enacted prior to its promulgation and in conflict therewith, are, hereby repealed."
(Emphasissupplied)
33SeeArts.152165,LawofWatersofAug.3,1866.
347Scaevola,op.cit.,497Alcubilla,op.cit.,p.271.However,thislawwasneverappliedinthisjurisdiction.

Kerr&Co.Cauden,6Phil.732.
35Arts.4,34and35,SpanishLawofWatersofJune13,1879.
36Alcubilla,op.cit.,p.400.
37Kerr&Co.vs.Cauden,6Phil.732.
38InthesitesmarkedbyNos.1and2inExh.D1:transcriptofocularinspection,p.8.
39Gibbs vs. Williams, 25 Kan. 214, 37 Am. Rep. 241 Curtis vs. Schmidt, 237 N.W. 463, 212 Laws 1279,

andHowardvs.Ingersoll,54U.S.381,14L.ed.189.
40The"channel"meansallthespacebetweenthelateralextremitiesofthetwobanksflankingtheRiver.
41Thisisthesandandgraveldepositarea.
42Exh.7Intevernor.
43Strictlyspeaking,thedisputedareaisonlythatpreciseportioninthestripoflandwherethedefendants

have actually made their extractions and excavations. The evidence on record (see infra) discloses that
defendantsdidnotextractmaterialsindiscriminatelyfromsaidareabutonlyfromthecertainlimitedsiteat
certainperiodsoftime.
44Sta.Maria,SessionofAug.8,1950,t.s.n.,pp.2829Exh.7Intervenor.
45AsperscalesinExhs.3Calalang,13,54andExh.II:Thefirstthreeareallduplicatecopiesoftheplan

submittedbytheBureauofMines.
46Manahan,SessionofFeb.16,1951,t.s.n.,pp.38,46and55Lorenzo,SessionofMar.2,1951,t.s.n.,p.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

10/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

6.
47SessionofFeb.16,1951,t.s.n.,p.33.
48SeeDecisionoflowercourt.RecordonAppeal,p.162.
49SessionofAug.8,1950,t.s.n.,p.26.
50AsperscaleinExh.D1.
51AsperscaleonExh.54.
52Ross(SessionofMay31,1955,t.s.n.,p.7)andEngr.Sese,(SessionofOct.13,1955,p.186).
53TheNewAccretionAreareferredtointhisdiscussionistheonewherethecamachiletreeislocated,not

theotherNewAccretionAreawhichislocatedwestofthe"temporarybank"lineinExh.54.
54AsperscalesinExhs.7AIntervenor,I,(bothdrawntothesamescaleasExh.13),D1,IIand3

Calalang.
55Theterms"primary"and"secondary"bankswerearbitrarydesignationsmadebydefendants'surveyors.

(Mendoza,SessionofOct.7,1955,t.s.n.,pp.138139).
56Sta.Maria,SessionofSept.12,1950,t.s.n.,pp.5658SessionofOct.23,1950,pp.6571Manahan,

Session of Feb. 16, 1951, t.s.n., pp. 5657 Villafuerte, Session of May 25, 1955, t.s.n., pp. 3032
Mendoza,SessionofOct.7,1955,t.s.n.,pp.121122,131132Pacheco,SessionofOct.13,1955,t.s.n.,
p. 150, 1965 Ocular inspection of June 15, 1951, Exhs. 2Calalang and 1City Engr. Manila for cross
sectionviewandExhs.811,foractualphotographicshots.
57Angeles, Session of Feb. 10, 1954, t.s.n., p. 76 Sese, Session of Oct. 13, 1955, t.s.n., pp. 188189

Villafuerte,SessionofMay25,1955,t.s.n.,p.23.
58Vicente, Session of Feb. 16, 1951, t.s.n., p. 36 Angeles, Session of Feb. 10, 1954, t.s.n., pp. 7475

Armas,SessionofAug.8,1955,t.s.n.,pp.101,103104Mendoza,SessionofOct.7,1955,t.s.n.,pp.141
142Pacheco,SessionofOct.13,1955,t.s.n.,pp.166169,172Lorenzo,SessionofMar.2,1951,t.s.n,
pp.25,30,33Villafuerte,SessionofMay25,1955,t.s.n.,pp.24,2628Ross,SessionofMay31,1955,
t.s.n.,pp.5,17Busuego,SessionofJuly18,1955,t.s.n.,pp.3537Dimanlig,SessionofNov.21,1955,
t.s.n.,pp.78,81Exhs.ICalalangandICityEngr.Manila.
59Thosefloodsoccurredonlyin1947,1952and1954.
60SessionofMay31,1955.t.s.n.,pp.1116.
61SessionofMay25,1955,t.s.n.,pp.78.
62SessionofMay25,1955,t.s.n.,pp.2830.
63SessionofMay31,1955,t.s.n.,pp.1618.
64SessionofOct.13,1955,t.s.n.,pp.162172,174.
65ThisprobablycoincideswithlineAAinExhs.3Calalang,13and54sinceitwasshotalongthecamachile

treelineacrosstheRiver.
66OnewasonAug.7,1952thesecondonAug.26,1952andthethird,onOct.11,1952.
67Ross,SessionofMay31,1955,t.s.n.,pp.1819Suiza,SessionofMay25,1955,t.s.n.,pp.9,12.
68SessionofMay31,1955,t.s.n.,pp.56.
69SessionofDec.19,1955,t.s.n.,pp.133,135.
70DelosArmas(SessionofAug.8,1955,t.s.n.,pp.96114)andEduardoManahan(SessionofDec.15,

1955,t.s.n.,pp.111128).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

11/12

7/7/2016

G.R.No.L19570

71TheArticleprovides:"Landsaccidentallythewatersoflakes,orbycreeks,riversandotherstreams,shall

continuetobethepropertyoftheirrespectiveowners."(Emphasissupplied)
7253Phil.424.
73Angeles,SessionofFeb.10,1954,t.s.n.,pp.75,77Lorenzo,SessionofMar.2,1951,t.s.n.,p.24,and

Exh.1Calalang.
74Vicente,SessionofFeb.16,1951,t.s.n.,pp.7,33Manahan,SessionofFeb.16,1951,t.s.n.,p.38and

Lorenzo,SessionofMar.2,1951,t.s.n.,pp.68.
75SessionofMar.2,1951,t.s.n,p.14.
76Sese,SessionofOct.13,1955,t.s.n.,pp.191,193194Ross,SessionofMay31,1955,t.s.n.,pp.45

Villafuerte,SessionofMay25,1955,t.s.n.,p.25Busuego,SessionofJuly18,1955,t.s.n.,p.32.
77SessionofFeb.16,1951,t.s.n.,p.24.
78Angeles, Session of Apr. 30, 1954, t.s.n., p. 45 Session of Nov. 8, 1954, t.s.n., p. 20 Mrs. Hilario,

SessionofApr.30,1954,t.s.n.,pp.1718.
79Busuego, Session of Jan. 30, 1952, t.s.n., pp. 45, 47 Session of July 18, 1955, t.s.n. p. 30 Sese,

SessionofOct.13,1955,t.s.n.,p.187Ross,SessionofMay31,1955,t.s.n.,pp.67,11.
80SessionofJan.30,1952,t.s.n.,p.42.
81TranscriptofOcularInspection,p.4.
82Sese,SessionofOct.13,1955,t.s.n.,pp.189190.
83Busuego,SessionofJan.30,1952,t.s.n.,p.45Sese,SessionofOct.13,1955,t.s.n.,p.188.
84Leao,SessionofDec.19,1955,t.s.n.,pp.130132.
85SessionofMay31,1955,t.s.n.,pp.910.
86SessionofDec.19,1955,t.s.n.,p.133.
87SessionofDec.6,1954,t.s.n.,pp.6061.
88RecordonAppeal,pp.138141.
89Leao,SessionofDec.19,1955,p.134.
90Includingthe2/5northernportiondeclaredbythelowercourt.
91Art.461providesthat"Riverbedswhichareabandonedthroughthenaturalchangeinthecourseofthe

watersipsofactobelongtotheownerswhoselandsareoccupiedbythenewcourseinproportiontothe
arealost."
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/apr1967/gr_l19570_1967.html

12/12