Agustin vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Accretion belongs to the riparian owner when the deposit is gradual and imperceptible, results from the effects of the current of the water, and occurs on land adjacent to the bank of a river. Once acquired, ownership of the accretion is not lost when the river subsequently changes course suddenly and separates the accreted land from the principal estate, because under Articles 459 and 463 of the New Civil Code, the owner retains ownership of land separated from his estate by the current.

The Cagayan River separates the towns of Solana on the west and Tuguegarao on the east in the province of Cagayan. In 1919, lands east of the river were covered by the Tuguegarao Cadastre, and in 1925, Original Certificate of Title No. 5472 was issued for land east of the river owned by Eulogio Agustin. In 1950, all lands west of the river were included in the Solana Cadastre, and among those occupying lands covered by that cadastre were the private respondents. The river gradually moved eastward over the years, depositing silt on the western bank, until 1968.

The Cagayan River separates the towns of Solana on the west and Tuguegarao on the east in the province of Cagayan. In 1919, the lands east of the river were covered by the Tuguegarao Cadastre, and in 1925, Original Certificate of Title No. 5472 was issued for land east of the river owned by Eulogio Agustin. As the years went by, the Cagayan River moved gradually eastward, depositing silt on the western bank, and this shifting and siltation continued until 1968.

In 1950, all lands west of the river were included in the Solana Cadastre. Among those occupying lands covered by the Solana Cadastre were the private respondents: Pablo Binayug, who had been in possession of thirteen lots since 1947, with eight hectares planted to tobacco and corn while twelve hectares were overgrown with talahib, and whose Homestead Application was approved in 1959; and Maria Melad, who owned Lot 3351. As a result of Civil Case No. 343-T, Macario Melad, the predecessor-in-interest of Maria and Timoteo Melad, was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-5026 for Lot 3351 on June 1, 1956.

Through the years, the Cagayan River eroded lands of the Tuguegarao Cadastre on its eastern bank, including Eulogio Agustin's Lot 8457, depositing the alluvium as accretion on the land possessed by Pablo Binayug on the western bank. However, in 1968, after a big flood, the Cagayan River changed its course, returned to its 1919 bed, and cut across the lands of Maria Melad, Timoteo Melad, and the spouses Pablo Binayug and Geronima Ubina, whose lands were transferred to the eastern, or Tuguegarao, side of the river. To cultivate those lots, they had to cross the river.

In April 1969, while the private respondents and their tenants were planting corn on their lots located on the eastern side of the Cagayan River, the petitioners, accompanied by the mayor and some policemen of Tuguegarao, claimed the same lands as their own and drove away the private respondents from the premises. This led to the filing of the complaints for recovery of the lots and their accretions.

The trial court found that the Cagayan River moved year by year from 1919 to 1968, a period of 49 years, and that the alluvium deposited on the western bank became greater in area than the original lands of the plaintiffs in both cases, though the addition in every year was imperceptible in nature. The testimonial evidence that the river moved eastward year by year was overwhelming, coming from witnesses including a former mayor of Solana, while only the denials of the defendants contradicted this. When Lot No. 3351, with an original area of 5 hectares, was resurveyed in 1968, it was discovered that 6.6 hectares had been added to it, and Lot No. 3349, covered by a homestead patent issued in June 1950 to Pablo Binayug, grew from its original area of 18 hectares by an additional 50 hectares through alluvium.

• Accretion to Private Respondents' Estate: Petitioners alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the land in question had become part of private respondents' estate as a result of accretion.
• Ownership of Accretion: Petitioners alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the accretion to private respondents' estate which used to pertain to petitioners' estate cannot preclude the private respondents from being the owners thereof.
• Effect of Sudden Change of River Course: Petitioners alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the ownership of private respondents over the accretion is not affected by the sudden and abrupt change in the course of the Cagayan River when it reverted to its old bed.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondents' arguments.

• Accretion: Whether the land in question had become part of private respondents' estate as a result of accretion.
• Ownership of Accretion: Whether the accretion to private respondents' estate which used to pertain to petitioners' estate precludes the private respondents from being the owners thereof.
• Effect of Sudden Change of River Course: Whether the ownership of private respondents over the accretion is affected by the sudden and abrupt change in the course of the Cagayan River when it reverted to its old bed.

• Accretion: Yes. All the requisites of accretion under Article 457 of the New Civil Code were present: the deposit was gradual and imperceptible, it resulted from the effects of the current of the water, and the land where accretion took place was adjacent to the bank of a river.
• Ownership of Accretion: Yes, the accretions belong to the private respondents as riparian owners upon whose lands the alluvial deposits were made, and the petitioners' claim to the same is without merit.
• Effect of Sudden Change of River Course: No. The private respondents' ownership of the accretion was not lost upon the sudden and abrupt change of the course of the Cagayan River in 1968, because Articles 459 and 463 of the New Civil Code provide that the owner retains ownership of land separated from his estate by the current.

• Accretion: The finding of the Court of Appeals that there had been accretions to the lots of the private respondents is a finding of fact conclusive on the Supreme Court. This finding is supported by Article 457 of the New Civil Code, which provides that to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. The Court cited the requisites for accretion: (1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it resulted from the effects of the current of the water; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of a river. All these requisites were present, as the trial court found that the Cagayan River moved year by year from 1919 to 1968, a period of 49 years, with the addition in every year being imperceptible in nature. The testimonial evidence supporting the eastward movement was overwhelming, while only the denials of the defendants contradicted it. The appellate court confirmed that the accretion had been going on from 1919 up to 1968, and that Lot No. 3351 grew by 6.6 hectares and Lot No. 3349 grew by an additional 50 hectares through alluvium.
• Ownership of Accretion: These accretions belong to the riparian owners upon whose lands the alluvial deposits were made, citing Roxas vs. Tuason and Director of Lands vs. Rizal. The reason for this principle is that if lands bordering on streams are exposed to floods and other damage due to the destructive force of the waters, and if by virtue of law they are subject to encumbrances and various kinds of easements, it is only just that such risks or dangers as may prejudice the owners thereof should in some way be compensated by the right of accretion, citing Cortes vs. City of Manila.
• Effect of Sudden Change of River Course: The private respondents' ownership of the accretion was not lost upon the sudden and abrupt change of the course of the Cagayan River in 1968 or 1969 when it reverted to its old 1919 bed and separated or transferred said accretions to the other side of the river. Articles 459 and 463 of the New Civil Code apply to this situation. Article 459 provides that whenever the current of a river segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he removes the same within two years. Article 463 provides that whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership, and he also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current. In this case, the sudden change of course of the Cagayan River as a result of a strong typhoon in 1968 caused a portion of the lands of the private respondents to be separated from the estate by the current, and the private respondents retained the ownership of the portion that was transferred by avulsion to the other side of the river.

• Accretion (Article 457, New Civil Code) — Accretion benefits a riparian owner when the following requisites are present: (1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it resulted from the effects of the current of the water; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of a river. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming that the private respondents, as riparian owners, acquired ownership of the alluvial deposits formed gradually on their lands over the 49-year period from 1919 to 1968.
• Avulsion (Articles 459 and 463, New Civil Code) — When the current of a river suddenly segregates a known portion of land from an estate and transfers it to another estate, or separates a portion of land from the estate by the current, the owner of the land retains ownership of the separated portion. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the private respondents retained ownership of the accretions even after the river's sudden change of course in 1968 separated those lands from their principal lots.

• "To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. (366)" — This is the statutory basis for the Court's ruling on accretion, quoted from Article 457 of the New Civil Code, and it establishes the general rule that riparian owners acquire ownership of gradual alluvial deposits.
• "Accretion benefits a riparian owner when the following requisites are present: (1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it resulted from the effects of the current of the water; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of a river." — This passage articulates the canonical three-part test for accretion, which the Court applied to the facts of the case and which is commonly cited in subsequent jurisprudence.
• "The reason for this principle is because, if lands bordering on streams are exposed to floods and other damage due to the destructive force of the waters, and if by virtue of law they are subject to encumbrances and various kinds of easements, it is only just that such risks or dangers as may prejudice the owners thereof should in some way be compensated by the right of accretion." — This passage explains the policy rationale behind the doctrine of accretion, justifying why riparian owners are favored in the allocation of alluvial deposits.
• "Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current." — This quotation from Article 463 of the New Civil Code supports the Court's holding that the private respondents retained ownership of the accretions even after the sudden change of the river's course separated those lands from their principal estates.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 132 SCRA 514 — Cited as the source of the three requisites for accretion under Article 457 of the New Civil Code; controlling authority for the elements that must be present for accretion to benefit a riparian owner.
• Roxas vs. Tuason, 9 Phil. 408 — Cited as authority for the proposition that accretions belong to the riparian owners upon whose lands the alluvial deposits were made.
• Director of Lands vs. Rizal, 87 Phil. 806 — Cited together with Roxas vs. Tuason as authority for the rule that alluvial deposits belong to the riparian owner.
• Cortes vs. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567 — Cited for the policy rationale behind the right of accretion, namely, that riparian owners who bear the risks of floods and other damage from waters should be compensated by the right of accretion.

• Article 457, New Civil Code — Provides that to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. The Court applied this provision in affirming that the private respondents acquired ownership of the alluvial deposits on their lands.
• Article 459, New Civil Code — Provides that whenever the current of a river, creek, or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he removes the same within two years. The Court applied this provision to the sudden change of course of the Cagayan River.
• Article 463, New Civil Code — Provides that whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership, and he also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current. The Court applied this provision in holding that the private respondents retained ownership of the portion transferred by avulsion to the other side of the river.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the case text.