HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO VS.

IAC
GR 68166, February 12, 1997

*If you read the case in cdasia, the decision is incorrect. The resolution was clarified by SC October 13, 1997 and
said that petition was meritorious, and that Trial Court was correct. I will just give the correct ruling in this case to
avoid confusion. 

Facts:

Sinforoso Pascual filed an application for foreshore lease covering a tract of foreshore land in Sibocon, Balanga,
Bataan, having an area of approximately seventeen (17) hectares. This application was denied on January 15, 1953.
So was his motion for reconsideration.

Subsequently, Emiliano Navarro, filed a fishpond application with the Bureau of Fisheries covering twenty five (25)
hectares of foreshore land also in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan. Initially, such application was denied by the Director of
Fisheries on the ground that the property formed part of the public domain. Upon motion for reconsideration, the
Director of Fisheries, on May 27, 1988, gave due course to his application but only to the extent of seven (7)
hectares of the property as may be certified by the Bureau of Forestry as suitable for fishpond purposes.

The Municipal Council of Balanga, Bataan, opposed Navarro's application and appealed to the Secretary of Natural
Resources who, however, affirmed the grant.

On the other hand, sometime in the early part of 1960, Sinforoso Pascual filed an application to register and
confirm his title to a parcel of land, situated in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan, which he claimed is an accretion to his
property, situated in Barrio Puerto Rivas, Balanga, Bataan, and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 6830. 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.

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, Pascual filed a complaint for ejectment against 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 covered by Plan Psu-175181. 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.

The case was decided against Pascual and he appealed to Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of
Balanga, Bataan. 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 pendency of the trial,
Both Emiliano Navarro and Pascual died  But they were substituted by their heirs.

On November 10, 1975, CFI rendered judgment finding the subject property to be foreshore land and, being a part
of the public domain, it cannot be the subject of land registration proceedings.

Heirs of Pascual appealed to IAC (Now CA) who reversed the ruling of the CFI. IAC found it difficult to see that the
accretion was actually from Manila Bay and it is more logical that the land was formed by the rivers’ mouth. The
land is also dry land and trees have grown there. This means that the soil there isn’t corals, pebbles or stones of
the sea. On the other hand, it would likely come from the Talisay and Bulacan rivers which wash out land from
mountains. IAC denied the petition siyempre kaya nga nakaabot sa SC ang kaso.

Issue:
Whether or not IAC was correct in appreciating the facts of the case and to have gravely misapplied statutory and
case law relating to accretion, specifically, Article 457 of the Civil Code.

Held:

NO.

Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under said Article 457requisites: (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. 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.

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. The conclusion formed by the
trial court on the basis of the foregoing observation is that the disputed land is part of the foreshore of Manila Bay
and therefore, part of the public domain. The accretion was deposited, not on either the eastern or western
portion of petitioners' land where a river each runs, but on the northern portion of petitioners' land which adjoins
the Manila Bay.

Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 should be applied, "Lands added to the shores by accretions and
alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no longer washed
by the waters of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special
industries, or for the coast-guard service, the Government shall declare them to be the property of the owners of
the estates adjacent thereto and as increment thereof."

The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in CA G.R. No . 59044-R dated November
29, 1978 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The decision of the Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), Branch 1, Balanga, Bataan, is hereby
ORDERED REINSTATED.