Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court and Heirs of Sinforoso

Pascual

Facts

Sinforoso Pascual filed an application for foreshore lease covering a tract of foreshore
land in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan. This application was denied, as well as his motion for
reconsideration. Subsequently, Emiliano Navarro filed a fishpond application with the Bureau
of Fisheries of foreshore land also in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan. Initially, such application was
denied on the ground that the property formed part of the public domain. Upon motion for
reconsideration, the Director of Fisheries gave due course to his application but only to the
extent of 7 hectares of the property. Aggrieved by the decision of the Director of Fisheries, it
appealed to the Secretary of Natural Resources who, however, affirmed the grant as well as
the then Executive Secretary, acting in behalf of the President of the Philippines.
On the other hand, Sinforoso Pascual filed an application to register and confirm his title
to a parcel of land, in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan. Pascual claimed that this land is an accretion
to his property. It is bounded on the eastern side by the Talisay River, on the western side by
the Bulacan River, and on the northern side by the Manila Bay. The Talisay River as well as
the Bulacan River flow downstream and meet at the Manila Bay thereby depositing sand and
silt on Pascual's property resulting in an accretion thereon. Sinforoso Pascual claimed the
accretion as the riparian owner.
The Director of Lands filed an opposition stating that neither Pascual nor his
predecessors-in interest possessed sufficient title to the subject property, the same being a
portion of the public domain and, therefore belongs to the Republic of the Philippines. The
Director of Forestry opposed Pascual's application for the same reason.
The court issued an order of general default excepting the Director of Lands and the
Director of Forestry. Upon motion of Emiliano Navarro, however, the order of general default
was lifted and Navarro thereupon filed an opposition to Pascual's application. Navarro claimed
that the land sought to be registered has always been part of the public domain, it being a part
of the foreshore of Manila Bay; that he was a lessee and in possession of a part of the subject
property by virtue of a fishpond permit issued by the Bureau of Fisheries and confirmed by the
Office of the President; and that he had already converted the area covered by the lease into a
fishpond.
During the pendency of the land registration case, Sinforoso Pascual filed a complaint for
ejectment against Emiliano Navarro, one Marcelo Lopez and their privies, alleged by Pascual
to have unlawfully claimed and possessed, through stealth, force and strategy, a portion of the
subject property. The defendants in the case were alleged to have built a provisional dike
thereon: thus they have thereby deprived Pascual of the premises sought to be registered.
This, notwithstanding repeated demands for defendants to vacate the property.
The case was decided against Pascual. Thus, Pascual appealed to the Court of First
Instance (now RTC). Because of the similarity of the parties and the subject matter, the
appealed case for ejectment was consolidated with the land registration case and was jointly
tried by the court.
During the pendency of the trial of the consolidated cases, Emiliano Navarro and
Sinforoso Pascual died and they were substituted by their heirs, the herein petitioners and
private respondents, respectively.
The court found that the property was a foreshore land and therefore part of public
domain. The RTC dismissed the complaint of Pascual for ejectment against Navarro and also
denied his land registration request. Pascual’s heirs appealed and the RTC’s decision was
reversed by the IAC on the ground that the accretion was caused by the two rivers and not the
Manila Bay, thus, it was not a foreshore land. Hence, this petition.
Issue

Whether or not the subject property sought to be registered be deemed an accretion

Ruling

No.

The disputed property was brought forth by both the withdrawal of the waters of Manila
Bay and the accretion formed on the exposed foreshore land by the action of the sea
which brought soil and sand sediments in turn trapped by the palapat and bakawan
trees planted thereon by petitioner Sulpicio Pascual in 1948.

Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under said Article 457, requires the
concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the accumulation of soil or sediment be
gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and (3)
that the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river.
Petitioners' claim of ownership over the disputed property under the principle of accretion,
is misplaced.
First, the title of petitioners' own tract of land reveals its northeastern boundary to be
Manila Bay. Petitioners' land, therefore, used to adjoin, border or front the Manila Bay and not
any of the two rivers whose torrential action, petitioners insist, is to account for the accretion on
their land. One of the petitioners, Sulpicio Pascual, testified in open court that the waves of
Manila Bay used to hit the disputed land being part of the bay's foreshore but, after he had
planted palapat and bakawan trees thereon in 1948, the land began to rise.
Moreover, there is no dispute as to the location of: (a) the disputed land; (b) petitioners'
own tract of land; (c) the Manila Bay; and, (d) the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers. Petitioners' own
land lies between the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers; in front of their land on the northern side lies
now the disputed land where before 1948, there lay the Manila Bay. If the accretion were to be
attributed to the action of either or both of the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers, the alluvium should
have been deposited on either or both of the eastern and western boundaries of petitioners'
own tract of land, not on the northern portion thereof which is adjacent to the Manila Bay.
Clearly lacking, thus, is the third requisite of accretion, which is, that the alluvium is deposited
on the portion of claimant's land which is adjacent to the river bank.
Second, there is no dispute as to the fact that petitioners' own tract of land adjoins the
Manila Bay. Manila Bay is obviously not a river, and jurisprudence is already settled as to what
kind of body of water the Manila Bay is.
The disputed land, thus, is an accretion not on a river bank but on a sea bank, or on what
used to be the foreshore of Manila Bay which adjoined petitioners' own tract of land on the
northern side. As such, the applicable law is not Article 457 of the Civil Code but Article 4 of
the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866.
In other words, the combined and interactive effect of the planting of palapat and
bakawan trees, the withdrawal of the waters of Manila Bay eventually resulting in the drying up
of its former foreshore, and the regular torrential action of the waters of Manila Bay, is the
formation of the disputed land on the northern boundary of petitioners' own tract of land.
The disputed property is an accretion on a sea bank, Manila Bay being an inlet or an arm
of the sea; as such, the disputed property is, under Article 4 of the Spanish Law of
Waters of 1866, part of the public domain.

In the light of the aforecited vintage but still valid law, unequivocal is the public nature of
the disputed land in this controversy, the same being an accretion on a sea bank which, for all
legal purposes, the foreshore of Manila Bay is. As part of the public domain, the herein
disputed land is intended for public uses, and "so long as the land in litigation belongs to the
national domain and is reserved for public uses, it is not capable of being appropriated by any
private person, except through express authorization granted in due form by a competent
authority." Only the executive and possibly the legislative departments have the right and the
power to make the declaration that the lands so gained by action of the sea is no longer
necessary for purposes of public utility or for the cause of establishment of special industries
or for coast guard services.