The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Amador Garcia, in a land dispute case. The plaintiff, C.N. Hodges, claimed that a portion of land that was added to the defendant's adjacent property (Lot 2290) was abruptly separated from the plaintiff's land (Lot 908) by the river. However, the Court found that without evidence of avulsion, the presumption is that the change in the river's course was gradual due to accretion and erosion. Therefore, the added land belonged to the defendant as the owner of the riparian land, since accretions naturally become the property of the river bank's owners over time.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Amador Garcia, in a land dispute case. The plaintiff, C.N. Hodges, claimed that a portion of land that was added to the defendant's adjacent property (Lot 2290) was abruptly separated from the plaintiff's land (Lot 908) by the river. However, the Court found that without evidence of avulsion, the presumption is that the change in the river's course was gradual due to accretion and erosion. Therefore, the added land belonged to the defendant as the owner of the riparian land, since accretions naturally become the property of the river bank's owners over time.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Amador Garcia, in a land dispute case. The plaintiff, C.N. Hodges, claimed that a portion of land that was added to the defendant's adjacent property (Lot 2290) was abruptly separated from the plaintiff's land (Lot 908) by the river. However, the Court found that without evidence of avulsion, the presumption is that the change in the river's course was gradual due to accretion and erosion. Therefore, the added land belonged to the defendant as the owner of the riparian land, since accretions naturally become the property of the river bank's owners over time.
GR No. L-12730, 22 August 1960 Doctrine: In the absence of evidence that the change in course of the river was sudden or that it occurred through avulsion1, the presumption is that the change was gradual and caused by accretion and erosion. Facts: 1. An action for the recovery of the possession of a portion of land2 which is alleged to have been separated from plaintiffs land by the natural change in the course of a river. 2. The land in dispute was formerly a part of Lot 908, which was acquired by plaintiff Hodges in 1950. The property was bounded on the north by the Salog River. Adjoining the river on the other side is Lot 2290 which was purchased by defendant Garcia from Dr. Hechanova. 3. Defendant had land resurveyed and it was disclosed that the land was originally surveyed in 1912 and had increased in area by the river bank. The defendant applied for the registration of additional area under the Land Registration Act. The cadastral court rendered a decision holding that the land sought to be registered is an accretion to Lot 2290 and decreeing that land be registered in his name. 4. Plaintiff claims portion of area added to Lot 2290 was separated from his lot by the current of the river and the separation was abrupt like in avulsion, so he retains ownership. Issue: W/N the portion of area added to the Lot was caused by accretion. Held: Yes Ratio: 1. The Court held that in the absence of evidence, the presumption is that the change was gradual and caused by accretion and erosion. Because of the gradual deposit of sediments of the Salog River along his land, the defendant has been in possession of said land since 1950 until now. In the cadastral proceedings wherein the land object of this action was sought to be registered by Garcia, plaintiff did not file any opposition despite due publication of the notice of application and hearing. 2. It clearly appearing that the land in question has become part of defendants estate as a result of accretion, it follows that said land now belongs to him. 3. Registration does not protect the riparian owner against the diminution of the area of his land through gradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream. 4. Accretions which the banks of rivers may gradually receive from the effect of the current become the property of the owners of the banks. Such accretions are natural incidents to land bordering on running streams and the provisions of the CC in that respect are not affected by the LRA.
1 the sudden separation of land from one property and its attachment to another, especially by flooding or a change in the course of a river.