s t

Case Notes for Property Law, PSU LAW 1 Sem AY 2017-2018 |1

# 44 GR No. 219811, Apr 06, 2016 REX DACLISON v. EDUARDO BAYTION

FACTS: Baytion filed a complaint for Forcible Entry and Damages with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary
Mandatory IInjunction with the MeTC of Quexon city against Daclison. Baytion was co-owner and administrator
of a parcel of land he and his siblings inherited from his parents. This 1,500 SqM land was covered by TCT No.
221507. On said land was a one-storey building divided into seven stalls. One of these stalls was leased to
Leonida, whose lease expired sometime in May 2008. Daclison took possession of the Leonidas portion without
prior knowledge and consent of Baytion, and used it for his business of selling marble and other finishing
materials. Upon learning of the unauthorized entry, Baytion demanded that Daclison vacate the property.
Daclison contends that Baytion leased the subject portion in 1978 to Antonio dela Cruz for his business. 15 yrs
later, a RIPRAP was erected at the creek lying beside Baytions property, leaving a deep down-sloping area,
which Antonio filled until it was levelled with the leased portion. He then paid for the right to possess the same.
In 2000, Leonida took over his business; she suffered a stroke in December 2007 and after her death, Ernanie dela
Cruz and Daclison took over the business in 2008. Daclison took over the management of their business venture.
Baytion demanded that he vacate the premises. Baytion and Ernanie agreed that ernanie would continue the lease,
and as such, he issued a check in the amount of P100,000 s payment for rental arrears. Baytion returned the check
2 weeks after and demanded that they vacate the property. Baytion also promised not to bother them anymore if
thy transferred to the filled-up, plane-levelled property. As such, Daclison and ernanie vacated the leased area
and transferred to the area in question.
The MeTC dismissed the case(without prejudice) on the ground that Baytion failed to include his siblings/co-
owners as plaintiffs in the case.
On appeal to the RTC, RTC ruled that MeTC did not have jurisdiction as the allegations in the complaint failed
to constitute a case of forcible entry; RTC did not dismiss the case but exercised its original jurisdiction. It held
that Baytion had a better right of possession over the property. Daclison appealed to the CA.

CA ruled that MeTC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case in a summary proceeding for forcible entry
because Baytion failed to allege that he was in prior physical possession of the property and that he was deprived
of his possession under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. It was of the view that the present action
for forcible entry had actually ripened into one for recovery of the right to possess or accion publiciana. It also
held that Baytion had a better right to possess as co-owner of the said property.

Daclison contends that the filled-up portion is not an improvement on the leased property; it is separate and
distinct from the leased property.

Baytion contends that the disputed portion is outside of the property under TCT 221507, it forms an integral part
as it is an accretion, construction or improvement on the property, and thus under the law, any accretion or
anything built thereon belongs to him and his co-owners.

ISSUE: Who between the parties has a better right over the contested portion of the land co-owned by
Baytion and the constructed riprap

HELD:

Baytion's contention that he owns that portion by reason of accretion is misplaced. Article 457 of the New Civil
Code provides:

To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belongs the accretion which they gradually
receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
In other words, the following requisites must concur in order for an accretion to be considered,
namely:
 s t
Case Notes for Property Law, PSU LAW 1 Sem AY 2017-2018 |2

(1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;

(2) that it be made through the effects of the current of the water; and,

(3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers

Baytion does not have a better right over the contested portion; it is not an accretion as the deposits were
artificial and man-made

It cannot be considered as an improvement or accession.

Civil Code provides:

Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs
made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles.

Improvements must be made, constructed, or introduced WITHIN OR ON THE PROPERTY

BAYTION IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE CONTESTED PORTION; HE DOES NOT HAVE A
BETTER RIGHT TO POSSESSS THE SAME. He does not have any cause of action to eject Daclison.

(Petition GRANTED. The February 5, 2015 Decision and the August 3, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 99627 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint for possession is hereby ordered
DISMISSED)