Primary Holding

The owner of the land along the margin nearest to an island formed in a non-navigable and non-floatable river has a better right to the island than those in actual possession of it, based on the principle of riparian ownership and accretion as provided in Article 465 of the Civil Code.

Background

The Eduaves, private respondents, filed an action to quiet title over a parcel of land that had become an island in the Tagoloan River against the Jagualings, petitioners, who were in possession of the island. The Eduaves claimed ownership through inheritance and presented evidence of tax declarations and acts of ownership on the land prior to its becoming an island. The Jagualings claimed ownership through adverse possession.

Facts

• 1. The land in dispute is an island formed in the Tagoloan River, a non-navigable and non-floatable river.
• 2. Private respondents, the Eduaves, claim ownership through inheritance from Felomino Factura, based on a Deed of Extra Judicial Partition and tax declarations dating back before the island's formation.
• 3. The Eduaves’ land was originally located on the margin of the river.
• 4. Typhoon Ineng in 1964 caused erosion and river movement leading to the formation of the island.
• 5. Petitioners, the Jagualings, started occupying the land in 1969 and claim ownership through adverse possession, arguing the island was newly formed and separate from the Eduaves’ original property.
• 6. The Eduaves presented evidence of tax payments, survey monuments, and a gravel extraction agreement to demonstrate prior acts of ownership.
• 7. The RTC initially considered the island as part of the public domain, a delta.
• 8. The CA found the island was formed by accretion and belonged to the riparian owner.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The Court of Appeals erred in applying Articles 463 and 465 of the Civil Code because private respondents failed to prove the identity of their property before it became an island.
• 2. The Court of Appeals' finding that the property was split by the branching of the river was speculative.
• 3. Private respondents only became interested in the land in 1979 for gravel extraction purposes, not for agriculture, implying lack of genuine prior ownership.
• 4. Petitioners claim to have possessed the island for about fifteen years, arguing for adverse possession.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. They are the rightful owners of the land, which was their inherited property located on the river margin.
• 2. The island was formed through accretion to their original property due to the natural action of the river.
• 3. They presented evidence of prior ownership, including tax declarations, surveyor's monuments, and contracts related to the land.
• 4. Petitioners' possession was permissive, initially as caretakers.

Issues

• 1. Did the Court of Appeals correctly apply Articles 463 and 465 of the New Civil Code?
• 2. Who has the better right to the island formed in a non-navigable river: the possessor of the island or the owner of the land along the margin?
• 3. Did the island constitute a delta and part of the public domain, or was it formed by accretion?
• 4. Can the petitioners claim ownership through adverse possession?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the private respondents, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision.
• 2. The Court held that the island was formed by the gradual and successive accumulation of alluvial deposits, thus constituting accretion under Article 465 of the Civil Code.
• 3. Article 465 grants ownership of islands formed by accretion in non-navigable rivers to the owners of the nearer margin.
• 4. The private respondents, as owners of the land along the margin, are deemed the owners of the island.
• 5. Petitioners’ claim of adverse possession failed because their possession, even if proven for fifteen years, could not ripen into ownership against the riparian owners who have a preferential right granted by law.
• 6. The island was not considered a delta and therefore not part of the public domain in this specific case.

Doctrines

• 1. Accretion: The gradual and imperceptible addition to the banks of rivers resulting from the action of the water. Article 465 states islands formed by accretion in non-navigable rivers belong to riparian owners.
• 2. Riparian Ownership: The rights of landowners whose property borders a body of water. Article 465 grants riparian owners preferential rights to islands formed near their land.
• 3. Adverse Possession: Acquiring title to real property by possessing it openly, notoriously, exclusively, and continuously for a statutory period. In this case, it was insufficient to overcome riparian ownership rights within the period claimed by petitioners.
• 4. Public Domain: Lands owned by the state. The court distinguished the island from a delta, which might be considered public domain.
• 5. Quasi in rem action: An action that is not strictly in rem (against the thing) nor in personam (against a person), but concerns real property where judgment is conclusive only between parties.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Between the one who has actual possession of an island that forms in a non-navigable and non-floatable river and the owner of the land along the margin nearest the island, who has the better right thereto?"
• 2. "Under this provision, the island belongs to the owner of the land along the nearer margin as sole owner thereof; or more accurately, because the island is longer than the property of private respondents, they are deemed ipso jure to be the owners of that portion which corresponds to the length of their property along the margin of the river."
• 3. "It is well-settled that lands formed by accretion belong to the riparian owner."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Tuason v. CA, 147 SCRA 37 [1987]: Cited to support the rationale for accretion belonging to the riparian owner.
• 2. Roxas v. Tuazon, 9 Phil. 408 [1907] and Cortes v. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567 [1908]: Cited in Tolentino's Commentaries on the Civil Code, regarding accretion rights.
• 3. Ignacio Grande, et al., v. CA, G.R. No. 17652 115 Phil. 521, 5 SCRA 524 [1962]: Cited in relation to good faith possession.
• 4. Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court 154 SCRA 328 [1987] and Realty Sales Enterprises v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra., citing Sandejas v. Robles, 81 Phil. 421 [1948]: Cited in relation to the nature of an action to quiet title as quasi in rem.
• 5. McDaniel v. McElvy, 108 So. 820 [1926]: Cited as reference for quasi in rem actions.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 420 of the Civil Code: Regarding property of public dominion.
• 2. Article 463 of the Civil Code: Regarding ownership of land separated by river branches.
• 3. Article 465 of the Civil Code: Regarding ownership of islands formed by accretion in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers.
• 4. Article 526 of the Civil Code: Defining possessor in good faith and bad faith.
• 5. Article 3 of the Civil Code: Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
• 6. Article 1137 of the Civil Code: Regarding acquisitive prescription of ownership of immovables through uninterrupted adverse possession of thirty years.
• 7. Article 459 of the Civil Code: Regarding avulsion and ownership retention.
• 8. Article 175 of the Spanish Law of Waters [3 August 1866]: Regarding the state's duty to declare river navigability.
• 9. Presidential Decree No. 1067 (Water Code): Article 59, regarding the declaration of navigability of rivers.