Heirs of Navarro v.

IAC
G.R. No. 68166 (1997)
Hermosisima, Jr., J. / kam

SUBJECT MATTER: Kinds of Accession > Accession Continua > Over Immovables > Natural > Avulsion
CASE SUMMARY: Sinforoso Pascual applied for the registration of a parcel of land that was formed on the northern part of his
property. His property is bounded by two rivers on the east and the west, and by Manila Bay on the north. CFI ruled that the disputed
property is a foreshore land, therefore, part of the public domain. IAC reversed CFIs ruling, finding that the disputed property was
formed by the action of the downward flow of the two rivers toward Manila Bay. SC held that the disputed land is an accretion on a
sea bank (Manila Bay) and not on a river bank, thus Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 is applicable, and not Article 457
of the Civil Code. If the land was formed by the action of the rivers, it should have been formed on the western and eastern boundaries
of Pascuals land, not on its northern boundary. The disputed property is a foreshore of Manila Bay and is therefore part of the public
domain.

DOCTRINES: (In addition to the doctrines below, see also underlined parts in the ratio.)
Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under said Article 457, requires the concurrence of the following requisites:
(1) that the accumulation of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible;
(2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and
(3) that the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river.
Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited while alluvium is the soil deposited on the estate fronting the river bank.
Riparian owner is the owner of such estate fronting the river bank while littoral owners are owners of lands bordering the shore of
the sea of lake or other tidal waters.
If disputed land is an accretion: land was formed by the action of the two rivers of Talisay and Bulacan (therefore can be a private
property of the riparian owner)
If its a foreshore land: land was formed by the action of Manila Bay (therefore part of the public domain)
The disputed land is an accretion not on a river bank but on a sea bank, making the applicable law not Article 457 of the NCC but
Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters (SLW) of 1866.

FACTS: Sinforoso Pascual & Emiliano Navarro are now deceased.

A.
Oct. 3, 1946 Sinforoso Pascual filed an
application for foreshore lease for a 17-
hectare foreshore land in Sibocon,
Balanga, Bataan.
This was DENIED on Jan 15, 1953. MR
was denied as well.
Upon MR, DF gave due course to his
application on May 27, 1958 but only to the
Subsequently, Emiliano Navarro filed a
fishpond application w/ the Bureau of extent of 7 hectares of property as may be
certified by the Bureau of Forestry as
Fisheries for a 25-hectare foreshore land.
suitable for fishpond purposes.
Initially DENIED by the Director of
Municipal Council of Balanga, Bataan
Fisheries (DF) on the ground that the
opposed this application so it appealed to
property formed part of public domain. the Secretary of Natural Resources.

The Executive Secretary, acting in behalf of Secretary of Natural Resources

the President, also affirmed the grant. affirmed the grant.

B. Sometime in the early part of 1960, Pascual filed an application to register and confirm his title to a parcel of land situated in
Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan (146,611 sqm). He claimed that this land is an accretion to his property located in Barrio Puerto Rivas,
Balanga, Bataan and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 6830. He claimed the accretion as the riparian owner.
The Director of Lands (represented by SolGen) and the Director of Forestry
(represented by the Provincial Fiscal) opposed Pascuals application on the ground that
the subject property is a portion of the public domain, thereby belonging to the
Republic of the Philippines. Director of Lands withdrew his opposition thereafter.
June 2, 1960 the court a quo issued an order of general default excepting the two
directors. This order was lifted on Feb. 13, 1961, upon Navarros opposition to
Pascuals application.

Navarro: 1. Land sought to be registered has always been part of the public domain, it being
part of the foreshore of Manila Bay.
2. He was a lessee and in possession of a part of subject property by virtue of a fishpond permit
issued by the Bureau of Fisheries and confirmed by the Office of the President; and
3. He had already converted the area covered by the lease into a fishpond.
Pascual also filed for a complaint for ejectment against Navarro, one Marcelo Lopez and their privies alleged by Pascual to have
unlawfully claimed and possessed, through stealth, force and strategy, a portion of his subject property by building a provisional dike
thereon, and that defendants are depriving him of said property despite repeated demands for them to vacate. This case was
DISMISSED, prompting Pascual to appeal to CFI Balanga.

CFI Consolidated the appealed case for ejectment and the land registration case. Pascual and Navarro both died during the pendency
of the trial and they were substituted by their heirs.
Nov. 10, 1975 CFI found the subject property to be foreshore land and being part of the public domain, cannot be the
subject of land registration proceedings. Dismissed ejectment case, denied land registration application, and directed Pascual
to pay costs in both instances.

IAC Heirs of Pascual appealed to IAC which REVERSED the CFIs findings and granted the petition for registration of the subject
property but excluding therefrom 50 meters from the corners.
Paramount issue to be resolved is WON the land sought to be registered is accretion or foreshore land
- Accretion: land was formed by the action of the two rivers of Talisay and Bulacan
- Foreshore land: land was formed by the action of Manila Bay
Pascuals owned the land immediately adjoining the land sought to be registered. The subject land was formed at the tip or
apex of Pascuals land adding thereto the land now sought to be registered. This case is quite unique because subject land (1)
is immediately attached to Pascuals land and also (2) facing the Manila Bay which is part of the sea.
Confusion faced by the lower court was the uneasy problem of deciding WON subject land was formed by the action of the
two rivers or by the action of the sea.
IAC: The flow of the two rivers is downwards to the Manila Bay thus the sediments of sand and silt are deposited at their
mouths. It is difficult to see how the Manila Bay could have been the cause of the deposit because in the natural course of
things, the waves of the sea eat the land on the shore thus subtracting from the land instead of adding into it. It is more logical
to believe that the two rivers flowing towards the bay emptied their cargo of sand, silt and clay at their mouths, therefore
causing Pascuals land to accumulate therein. Even if Pascual did plant Palapat and Bakawan trees on the land (the trees were
claimed to be the reason why the sand, silt, and clay from Manila Bay formed the subject property), the accretion brought by
the rivers extended well past these trees.
The existence of vegetation on the land could only confirm that the soil thereat came from inland rather than from the sea, for
what could the sea bring to the shore but sand, pebbles, stones, rocks, and corrals? On the other hand, the two rivers would be
bringing soil on their downward flow which they brought along from the eroded mountains, the lands along their path, and
dumped them all on the northern portion of Pascuals land.
Bureau of Lands, represented by acting officer Jesus Orozco, actually supports this finding by the IAC, stating that the
subject property is indeed formed by accretion and may be considered as private property of the riparian owner.

Because of the report of the Bureau of Lands, the bureau withdrew its opposition and limited the same to 50 meters wide along
the Manila Bay, which should be declared public land as part of the foreshore.
Heirs of Navarro and Director of Forestry filed an MR of the IAC decision which were both denied by IAC. IAC ordered the
Navarros to vacate the portion of their fishpond property owned by the Pascuals and to hand over its possession to the latter.

Second MR was also denied by respondent court. Hence, this petition where the respondent appellate court is imputed to have
palpably erred in appreciating the facts of the case and to have gravely misapplied statutory and case law relating to accretion,
specifically, Article 457 of the Civil Code.

ISSUES (HOLDING): Whether the disputed parcel of land is an accretion or a part of the public domain (PUBLIC DOMAIN)

RATIO DECIDENDI:
The disputed property was brought forth by both the withdrawal of the waters of Manila Bay and the accretion formed on the
exposed foreshore land by the action of the sea which brought soil and sand sediments in turn trapped by the Palapat and Bakawan
trees planted thereon by petitioner Sulpicio Pascual in 1948.

1. See first doctrine above requirements of accretion. If the accretion is to be attributed to the action of the rivers, then the
alluvium (see definition in doctrine part) should be located in the eastern and western boundaries of petitioners tract of land,
not on the northern portion that faces Manila Bay. The third requirement of Article 457 is clearly lacking since the alluvium
is not deposited on the portion of the claimants land which is adjacent to the river bank.
2. The disputed land is an accretion not on a river bank but on a sea bank, making the applicable law not Article 457 of the NCC
but Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. The process by which disputed land was formed is not difficult to
discern from the facts of the case:
- There is no portion wherein the two rivers meet before they end up at Manila Bay, making it impossible for the two
rivers to have caused the formation of the disputed land. Disputed land is part of the foreshore of Manila Bay, and
therefore, part of the public domain.
 - Justice Serannos dissent in the appellate court is more reasonable and valid as found by the SC. The combined and
interactive effect of the planting of Palapat and Bakawan trees, the withdrawal of the waters of Manila Bay eventually
resulting in the drying up of its former foreshore, and the regular torrential action of the waters of Manila Bay, is the
formation of the disputed land on the northern boundary of petitioners own tract of land.

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 their property as owners of the
estates adjacent thereto.

DISPOSITIVE: The instant Petition for Review (by the Pascuals) is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED. Costs against petitioners
(Pascuals).

NOTES:
Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters (SLW) of 1866:
Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When
they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of
special industries, or for the coast-guard service, the Government shall declare them to be the property of the owners of the estates
adjacent thereto and as increment thereof.

The SC discussed briefly the difference between Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay. It was held in previous cases that for the purposes
of determining which law on accretion is to be applied, Manila Bay is considered a sea (Article 4 of the SLW of 1866) while Laguna
de Bay is considered a lake (Article 84 of the SLW of 1866 is to be applied to Laguna de Bay).