GRANDE v.
CA the case but by basing from the rulings of the lower courts, it seems that
June 30, 1962| Barrera, J. | Ownership
Digester: Chua, Gian Angelo
SUMMARY: This case is about the ownership of an alluvial deposit. Petitioners
inherited a parcel of land. This land was registered. They had it surveyed sometime in
1930 which survey indicated that the northeastern portion was the Cagayan River.
Through the years, an alluvial deposit of around 2 he formed in the northeastern
portion. In 1948, respondents entered the land under claim of ownership. In 1958,
petitioners filed a case against respondents to quiet title to the alluvial deposit. The
Court ruled that the alluvial deposit was acquired by respondents through prescription
having been occupying said portion for more than 10 years (1933-1958).
DOCTRINE: Both under Article 457 of the NCC and Article 366 of the OCC,
petitioners are the lawful owners of said alluvial property, as they are the registered
owners of the land which it adjoins. However, to obtain protection from prescription,
the land must be placed under the operation of the registration laws wherein certain
judicial procedures have been provided. In this case, the question portion was never
registered by petitioners; hence, it was subject to acquisition by prescription.
FACTS:
● Ignacio, Eulogia, Alfonso, Eulalia, and Sofia Grande (petitioners) inherited from
their mother a parcel of land (3.5032 he) in Isabela. This land is registered as shown
by the Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. 2982). They had it surveyed for
purposes of registration sometime in 1930 and it was indicated that its northeastern
boundary was the Cagayan River.
● Many years after, a gradual accretion on the northeastern side took place because of
the current of the Cagayan River such that an alluvial deposit of 1.9964 he (19,964
sqm), more or less, had been added to the land of petitioners.
● This alluvial deposit was entered upon by Domingo and Esteban Calalung
(respondents) in September 1948 under claim of ownership. In January 1958
petitioners filed an action in the CFI Isabela against respondents to quiet title to
said portion formed by accretion.
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF
● Petitioners argued that they and their predecessors-in-interest were formerly in
peaceful and continuous possession thereof, until September, 1948, when
respondents entered upon the land under claim of ownership. (It was not
specifically mentioned in the case but by basing from the rulings of the lower
courts, it seems that petitioners argued that the contested portion being an
accretion to their registered land, such portion is now part and parcel of their
registered land such that it cannot be acquired by prescription.)
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
● Respondents argued that they are the owners of the portion formed by accretion,
asserting that they have been in continuous, open, and undisturbed possession of
said portion prior to 1933 up to the present. (It was not specifically mentioned in
respondents argued that by ordinary prescription, they are the owners of said
portion having stayed there for more than 10 years [1933-1958].)
● CFI – Rendered a decision adjudging ownership of the portion in question to
petitioners. The CFI found as a fact that the accretion had not yet started in 1931
since when the land was surveyed sometime in 1930, the northeastern portion was
still the Cagayan River. Accretion was only formed in 1948 when it was declared in
that same year for taxation purposes by respondents when they entered upon the
land. But this does not mean that respondents are the owners. The land in question
being an accretion to the mother or registered land of the petitioners, the accretion
belongs to the petitioners as provided by the CC. On the issue of acquisition by
prescription, assuming that respondents occupied the land in September 1948, and
considering that the action was commenced on January 1958, respondents have not
been in possession of the land for 10 years; hence, they could not have acquired the
land by ordinary prescription. Nonetheless, as the alluvium is, by law, part and
parcel of the registered property, the same may be considered as registered
property, and, therefore, it could not be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession by another person.
● CA – CA reversed the ruling of the CFI. It said that an accretion to registered land,
while declared by specific provision of the Civil Code to belong to the owner of the
land as a natural accession thereof, does not ipso jure become entitled to the
protection of the rule of imprescriptibility of title established by the Land
Registration Act because such protection does not extend beyond the area given
and described in the certificate. CA gave more credence to respondents’ testimony
that they occupied the land since 1933 as it is supported by the fact that it is they
who declared the disputed portion for taxation. CA said that since the respondents
had been in possession from 1933 to 1958, prescription had already supervened in
favor of them.
RULING: The decision of the Court of Appeals under review is hereby affirmed, with
costs against the petitioners. So ordered.
Whether the alluvial property in question was subject to acquisition through
prescription – YES.
● There can be no dispute that both under Article 457 of the NCC and Article 366 of
the OCC, petitioners are the lawful owners of said alluvial property, as they are the
registered owners of the land which it adjoins.
● However, We agree with the CA that it does not, just as an unregistered land
purchased by the registered owner of the adjoining land does not, by extension,
become ipso facto registered land. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing
(governed by CC), and registration under the Torrens system of that ownership is
quite another (governed by land registration law).
● Registration under the Land Registration and Cadastral Acts does not vest or give
title to the land, but merely confirms and thereafter protects the title already
 possessed by the owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of third parties.
But to obtain this protection, the land must be placed under the operation of
the registration laws wherein certain judicial procedures have been provided.
● In this case, petitioners never sought registration of said alluvial property. The
increment, therefore, never became registered property, and hence is not entitled or
subject to the protection of imprescriptibility enjoyed by registered property under
the Torrens system. Consequently, it was subject to acquisition through
prescription by third persons.

Whether respondents have acquired the alluvial property in question through

prescription – YES.
● The Court of Appeals, after analyzing the evidence, found that respondents were in
possession of the alluvial lot since 1933, openly, continuously and adversely, under
a claim of ownership up to the filing of the action in 1958. This finding of the
existence of these facts, arrived at by the Court of Appeals after an examination of
the evidence presented by the parties, is conclusive as to them and cannot be
reviewed by us.
● The law on prescription applicable to the case is that provided in Act 190 and not
the provisions of the Civil Code, since the possession started in 1933 when the
pertinent articles of the old Civil Code were not in force and before the effectivity
of the new Civil Code in 1950. Hence, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that
the respondents acquired alluvial lot in question by acquisitive prescription is in
accordance with law.