TITONG v.

CA
For one to file an action to quiet title to a parcel of land, the requisites in Art 476 of the NCC must be complied with
meaning there should be an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance setting forth the cloud or doubt over the title.
Otherwise, the action to be filed can either be ejectment, forcible entry, unlawful detainer, accion reivindicatoria or accion
publiciana.

FACTS:
A 20,592 square meter parcel of land located at Barrio Titiong, Masbate is the subject property being disputed in this
case. The property is being claimed by 2 contestants, however legal title over the property can only be given to one of
them.
The case originated from an action for quieting of title filed by petitioner Mario Titong. The RTC of Masbate decided in
favor of private respondents, Vicente Laurio and Angeles Laurio as the true and lawful owners of the disputed land. The
CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Titong asserts that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area of 3.2800 hectares and declared for
taxation purposes. He claims that on three separate occasions, private resps, with their hired laborers, forcibly entered a
portion of the land containing an approximate area of 2 hectares and began plowing the same under pretext of
ownership. On the other hand, private resps denied the claim and said that the subject land formed part of the 5.5
hectare agricultural land which they had purchased from their predecessor-in-interest, Pablo Espinosa.
Titong identified Espinosa as the his adjoining owner asserting that no controversy had sprouted between them for 20
years until the latter sold lot 3749 to V. Laurio. The boundary between the land sold to Espinosa and what remained of
Titong’s property was the old Bugsayon river. When Titong employed Lerit as his tenant, he instructed the latter to
change the course of the old river and direct the flow of water to the lowland at the southern portion of Titong’s property,
thus converting the old river into a Riceland.
Private resps, on the other hand, denied claim of Titong’s, saying that the area and boundaries of disputed land remained
unaltered during the series of conveyances prior to its coming into his hands. Accdg to him, Titong first declared land for
taxation purposes which showed that the land had an area of 5.5 hectares and was bounded on the north by the B.
River; on the east by property under ownership by Zaragoza, and on the west by property owned by De la Cruz. He also
alleges that Titong sold property to Verano. The latter reacquired the property pursuant to mutual agreement to
repurchase the same.
However, the property remained in Titong’s hands only for 4 days because he sold it to Espinosa. It then became a part
of the estate of Espinosa’s wife, late Segundina Espinosa. Later on, her heirs executed an “Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate with Simultaneous Sale” whereby the 5.5 hectares was sold to Laurio for 5,000 pesos. In all these conveyances,
the area and boundaries of the property remained exactly the same as those appearing in the name of Titong’s.
The court found out that 2 surveys were made of the property. First survey was made by Titong, while the second was
the relocation survey ordered by the lower court. Because of which, certain discrepancies surfaced. Contrary to Titong’s
allegation, he was actually claiming 5.9789 hectares, the total areas of lot nos 3918, 3918-A and 3606. The lot 3479
pertaining to Espinosa’s was left with only an area of 4.1841 hectares instead of the 5.5 hectares sold by Titong to him.
Apprised of the discrepancy, private resps filed a protest before Bureau of Lands against 1st survey, and filing a case for
alteration of boundaries before the MTC, proceedings of which were suspended because of instant case.
Private resps. Avers that Titong is one of the four heirs of his mother, Leonida Zaragoza. In the Extrajudicial Settlement
with Sale of Estate of late Zaragoza, the heirs adjudicated unto themselves the 3.6 hectares property of the deceased.
The property was bounded by the north by Verano, on the east by Bernardo Titong, on the south by the Bugsayon River
and on the west by Benigno Titong.
Instead of reflecting only .9000 hectares as his rightful share in the extrajud settlement, Titong’s share bloated to 2.4
hectares. It then appeared to Laurio that Titong encroached upon his property and declared it as part of his inheritance.
The boundaries were likewise altered so that it was bounded on the north by Verano, on the east by B. Titong, on the
south by Espinosa and on the west by Adolfo Titong. Laurio also denied that Titong diverted course of the B. river after
he had repurchased the land from Verano because land was immediately sold to Espinosa thereafter.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Titong is the rightful owner of the subject property
RULING: NO
The remedy for quieting of title may be availed of under the circumstances mentioned in Art 476 of the NCC wherein it
says that action to quiet title may be made as a remedial or preventive measure. Under 476, a claimant must show that
there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon
owner’s title to or interest in real property. The ground for filing a complaint for quieting title must be “instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding.”
In the case at bar, Titong failed to allege that there was an instrument, claim etc be clouded over his property. Through
his allegations, what Titong imagined as clouds cast on his title were Laurio’s alleged acts of physical intrusion into his
purported property. The grounds mentioned are for action for forcible entry and not quieting title.

In addition, the case was considered to be a boundary dispute. The RTC and CA correctly held that when Titong sold the
5.5 hectare land to Espinosa, his rights and possession ceased and were transferred to Laurio upon its sale to the latter.

Thus, it is now a contract of sale wherein it is a contract transferring dominion and other real rights in the thing sold.
Titong also cannot rely on the claim of prescription as ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith
and with just title for the time fixed by law.
•
BINALAY VS. MANALO
A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is not the alluvial process contemplated in Art. 457. The accumulation of
the soil deposits must be slow and hardly imperceptible in order for the riparian owner to acquire ownership thereof. Also,
the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the rivers (or the sea coast).
FACTS
Manalo acquired 2 lots which were originally owned by Judge Taccad from 2 different people (the latter’s daughter and
from an earlier purchaser). These lots were later consolidated into Lot 307, a total of 10.45 hectares. The lot was beside
the Cagayan River, which, due to flooding, would place a portion of the land underwater during the rainy season
(September to December). On sunny days, however, the land would be dried up for the entire dry season (January to
August). When a survey of the land was conducted on a rainy month, a portion of the land that Manalo bought was then
underwater and was thus left unsurveyed and excluded from Lot 307.
The big picture is this: Cagayan River running from south to north, forks at a certain point to form two braches (western
and eastern) and then unites at the other end, further north, to form a narrower strip of land. The eastern branch of the
river cuts through Lot 307, and is flooded during the rainy season. The unsurveyed portion, on the other hand, is the bed
of the eastern branch. Note that the fork exists only during the rainy season while the “island”/elongated strip of land
formed in the middle of the forks becomes dry and perfect for cultivation when the Cagayan river is at its ordinary depth.
The strip of land in the middle of the fork totaled 22.7 hectares and was labeled Lot 821-822. Lot 821 is directly opposite
Lot 307 and is separated by the eastern branch of the river’s fork.
Manalo claims that Lot 821 belongs to him by way of accretion to the submerged portion of the land to which it is
adjacent. Petitioners (Binalay, et al) who possess the Lot 821, on the other hand, insist that they own it. They occupy the
other edges of the lot along the river bank (i.e. the fertile portions on which they plant tobacco and other agricultural
products) and also cultivate the western strip during the summer.
Manalo filed 2 cases for forcible entry which were both dismissed. Later on, he filed a complaint for quieting of title,
possession, and damages against petitioner. The trial court and the CA ruled in favor of Manalo, saying that Lot 821 and
Lot 307 cannot be considered separate and distinct from each other. They reasoned that when the land dries up for the
most part of the year, the two are connected. [Note: The CA applied the ruling in Gov’t of the Phil Islands vs. Colegio de
San Jose, which was actually inappropriate because the subject matter in this case was a lake so that the definition of a
“bed” was different.]
ISSUE:
Whether or not Manalo owns Lot 821 by way of accretion
RULING: No.
The disputed property is not an accretion. It is the action of the heavy rains that cause the highest ordinary level of
waters of the Cagayan River during the rainy season. The depressed portion is a river bed and is thus considered property
of public domain.
The SC observed the following:
a) The pictures identified by Manalo during his direct examination depict the depressed portion as a river bed. The dried
up portion had dike-like slopes (around 8m) on both sides connecting it to Lot 307 and Lot 821 that are vertical and very
prominent.
b) The eastern bed already existed even before Manalo bought the land. It was called “Rio Muerte de Cagayan.”
c) Manalo could not have acquire ownership of the land because article 420 of the civil code states that rivers are
property of public dominion. The word “river” includes the running waters, the bed, and the banks. [The seller never
actually owned that part of the land since it was public property]
d) The submerged area (22.72 ha) is twice the area of the land he actually bought. It is difficult to suppose that such a
sizable area could have been brought about by accretion.
More importantly, the requisites of accretion in article 457 were not satisfied. These are: 1) that the deposition of the soil
or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; 2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and 3)
the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the rivers (or the sea coast). The accretion should’ve
been attached to Lot 307 for Manalo to acquire its ownership. BUT, the claimed accretion lies on the bank of the river;
not adjacent to Lot 307 but directly opposite it – across the river. Aside from that, the dike-like slopes which were very
steep may only be formed by a sudden and forceful action like flooding. The steep slopes could not have been formed by
the river in a slow and gradual manner.
GRANDE v. CA
FACTS:
The Grandes are owners of a parcel of land in Isabela, by inheritance from their deceased mother, Patricia Angui, who
likewise, inherited it from her parents. In the early 1930’s, the Grandes decided to have their land surveyed for
registration purposes. The land was described to have Cagayan River as the northeastern boundary, as stated in the title.
By 1958, a gradual accretion took place due to the action of the current of the river, and an alluvial deposit of almost
20,000 sq.m. was added to the registered area. The Grandes filed an action for quieting of title against the Calalungs,
stating that they were in peaceful and continuous possession of the land created by the alluvial deposit until 1948, when
the Calalungs allegedly trespassed into their property. The Calalungs, however, stated that they were the rightful owners
since prior to 1933.
The CFI found for the Grandes and ordered the Calalungs to vacate the premises and pay for damages. Upon appeal to
the CA, however, the decision was reversed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alluvium deposited land automatically belongs to the riparian owners?

HELD:
NO. There can be no dispute that petitioners are the lawful owners of said alluvial property, as they are the registered
owners of the land which it adjoins. It does not however, become a registered land just because the lot which receives it
is covered by a Torrens title thereby making the alluvial property imprescriptible.
Art. 457 dictates that alluvium deposits on land belong to the owners of the adjacent land. However, this does not ipso jure
become theirs merely believing that said land have become imprescriptible. The land of the Grandes only specifies a specific
portion, of which the alluvial deposits are not included, and are thus, subject to acquisition by prescription. Since the
Calalungs proved that they have been in possession of the land since 1934 via two credible witnesses, as opposed to the
Grande’s single witness who claims that the Calalungs only entered the land in 1948, the Calalungs have been held to have
acquired the land created by the alluvial deposits by prescription. This is because the possession took place in 1934, when
the law to be followed was Act 190, and not the New Civil Code, which only took effect in 1950.
Ownership of land is one thing, and registration under the Torrens system is quite another. Ownership over the accretion
received by the land adjoining the river is governed by the civil code. Imprescriptibility of registered land is provided in the
registration law. Registration under the Land Registration and Cadastral Acts does not vest or give title to the land, but
merely confirms and thereafter protects the title already possessed by the owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation
of third parties. But to obtain this protection, the land must be placed under the operation of the registration Laws. The
fact remains that petitioners never sought registration of said alluvial property.
The increment therefore never became registered property, and hence is not entitled or subject to the protection of
Imprescriptibility enjoyed by registered property under the Torrens System. Consequently, it was subject to acquisition
through prescription by 3rd persons.