Usero vs. Court of Appeals

A creek, as property of public dominion, is not susceptible to private ownership and cannot be registered under the Torrens System, permitting adjacent landowners to utilize the creek bank to protect their property from erosion.

Petitioners Samela and Usero own adjacent lots in Golden Acres Subdivision, situated in front of respondents' lot in Pilar Village. A low-level strip of land containing stagnant water and water lilies lies between the properties. Storms caused the water to rise and damage respondents' house, prompting respondents to construct a concrete wall and rip-rap the soil on the strip. Petitioners demanded the construction stop, asserting private ownership over the strip.

• Property Configuration: Petitioners Samela and Usero own Lots 1 and 2, Block 5 of Golden Acres Subdivision; respondents own a lot at 18 Anahaw St., Pilar Village. Between them lies a low-level strip of land with stagnant water and water lilies, bounded by the Pilar Village perimeter wall.
• The Encroachment: Heavy rains caused water levels in the strip to rise, damaging respondents' house. On July 30, 1998, respondents erected a concrete wall and rip-rapped the soil on the strip. Petitioners demanded cessation, claiming ownership. Respondents refused, viewing the strip as a creek, though they offered payment for peace, which failed.
• Evidentiary Record: Petitioners presented Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), tax declarations, and a geodetic engineer's relocation survey indicating a 43-square-meter encroachment and no existing creek. Respondents presented their TCT, a barangay certification of the creek's existence, a DPWH certification identifying the strip as a tributary of Talon Creek, boundary maps, and photographs of water lilies.

• Private Ownership: Petitioners argued that the disputed strip of land is part of their private property, asserting that their TCTs and the geodetic engineer's relocation survey prove the absence of a creek and confirm respondents' encroachment.
• Factual Error: Petitioners maintained that the lower courts misapprehended the facts in concluding that the strip was a creek rather than privately owned land.

• Public Domain: Respondents countered that the disputed strip is a creek forming part of the public domain, citing official certifications and physical indicators, thereby precluding petitioners' claim of private ownership.
• Right to Self-Protect: Respondents argued that they had the right to rip-rap the creek bank to protect their property from soil erosion and water damage caused by rising water.

• Nature of the Disputed Strip: Whether the disputed strip of land is the private property of the petitioners or part of a creek belonging to the public domain.

• Nature of the Disputed Strip: The disputed strip of land is a creek forming part of the public domain, not susceptible to private ownership. Substantial evidence—including barangay and DPWH certifications and the presence of water lilies—supports the finding of a creek. Petitioners' TCTs contain incomplete boundary descriptions relative to the creek site, and a creek cannot be registered under the Torrens System. As property of public dominion under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the creek belongs to the State, allowing respondents to utilize the rip-rapped portion to prevent erosion.

• Property of Public Dominion — Property intended for public use, such as rivers and canals, belongs to the public domain and is not susceptible to private ownership. Creeks fall under the phrase "others of similar character" in Article 420 of the Civil Code. Applied to classify the disputed strip of land as a creek, thereby placing it outside the commerce of man and precluding its registration under the Torrens System.
• Rule 45 Review — Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings lack evidentiary support or are based on a misapprehension of facts. Applied to defer to the Court of Appeals' factual findings, which were supported by substantial evidence.

• "The phrase 'others of similar character' includes a creek which is a recess or an arm of a river. It is property belonging to the public domain which is not susceptible to private ownership."
• "Being public water, a creek cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual."

• Maneclang v. IAC, 161 SCRA 469 (1988) — Followed. Established that a creek is property of public dominion and not susceptible to private ownership.
• Diego v. Court of Appeals, 102 Phil. 494 (1957) — Followed. Held that public water cannot be registered under the Torrens System.
• Magellan Capital Management Corporation v. Zosa, 355 SCRA 157 (2001) — Cited for the principle that Rule 45 review is limited to questions of law.

• Art. 419, Civil Code — Classifies property as either of public dominion or of private ownership. Cited as the foundational provision for determining the nature of the disputed strip.
• Art. 420, Civil Code — Declares things intended for public use, such as rivers and canals, as property of public dominion. Applied to include creeks under "others of similar character," thereby placing the disputed strip in the public domain.

Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia.