Alluvion

IGNACIO GRANDE, ET AL vs CA
G.R. No. L-17652 |June 30, 1962 | Barrera, J.

Petitioner(s): IGNACIO GRANDE, ET AL.

Respondent(s): HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DOMINGO CALALUNG and ESTEBAN

CALALUNG

Doctrine: Alluvial deposits on registered land; Increment not automatically

registered.—An accretion does not automatically become registered
land, just because the lot which receives such accretion is covered by a
Torrens title.

Ownership of a piece of land is one thing; registration under the Torrens

system of that ownership is another. Ownership over the accretion
received by the land adjoining a 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, wherein certain
judicial procedures have been provided

CASE SUMMARY
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
19,964 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.
HELD:

FACTS
Appeal from the decision of Court of Appeals
 Petitioners are the owners of a parcel of land, with an area of 3.5032 hectares, located at barrio
Ragan, municipality of Magsaysay (formerly Tumauini), province of Isabela, by inheritance from
their deceased mother Patricia Angui (who inherited it from her parents Isidro Angui and Ana
Lopez, in whose name said land appears registered, as shown by Original Certificate of Title No.
2982, issued on June 9, 1934). 
 In 1930, the property was surveyed for purposes of registration. Its northeastern boundary was the Cagayan
River
  Since then, and for many years thereafter, a gradual accretion on the northeastern side took place,
by action of the current of the Cagayan River, so much so, that by 1958, the bank thereof had
receded to a distance of about 105 meters from its original site, and an alluvial deposit of 19,964
square meters (1.9964 hectares), more or less, had been added to the registered area 
 On January 25, 1958, petitioners instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Isabela
against respondents, to quiet title to said portion (19,964 square meters) formed by accretion, alleging in
their complaint that they and their predecessors-in-interest, were formerly in peaceful and continuous
possession thereof, until September, 1948, when respondents entered upon the land under claim of
ownership. Petitioners also asked for damages corresponding to the value of the fruits of the land as well as
attorney's fees and costs.
 In their answer (dated February 18, 1958), respondents claim ownership in themselves, asserting that they
have been in continuous, open, and undisturbed possession of said portion, since prior to the year 1933 to
the present.
Court of First Instance of Isabela decision: adjudging the ownership of the portion in question to petitioners, and
ordering respondents to vacate the premises and deliver possession thereof to petitioners, and to pay to the latter
P250.-00 as damages and costs.
 a new provision of the New Civil Code that ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by occupation
(Art. 714, New Civil Code). The land in question being an accretion to the mother or registered land of the
plaintiffs, the accretion belongs to the plaintiffs (Art. 457, New Civil Code; Art. 366, Old Civil Code).
 the law does not require any act of possession on the part of the owner of the riparian owner, from the
moment the deposit becomes manifest (Roxas v. Tuason, 9 Phil. 408; Cortez v. City of Manila, 10 Phil.
567). Further, no act of appropriation on the part of the reparian owner is necessary, in order to acquire
ownership of the alluvial formation, as the law does not require the same (3 Manresa, C.C., pp. 321-326).
Court of Appeals decision: prescription had already supervened in favor of defendants.
Hence this appeal.

Issue: W/N THE RESPONDENTS HAVE ACQUIRED THE ALLUVIAL PROPERTY IN QUESTION
THROUGH PRESCRIPTION. - YES

We agree with the Court of Appeals that it does not, just as an unregistered land purchased by the registered owner
of the adjoining land does not, by extension, become ipso facto registered land. Ownership of a piece of land is one
thing, and registration under the Torrens system of that ownership is quite another. Ownership over the accretion
received by the land adjoining a river is governed by the Civil Code. lmprescriptibility 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 wherein certain judicial procedures have been provided.

Issue 2: W/N THE RESPONDENTS ACQUIRE SAID ALLUVIAL PROPERTY THROUGH

ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION. YES
Court of Appeals, after analyzing the evidence, found that respondents-appellees were in possession of the alluvial
lot since 1933 or 1934, openly, continuously and adversely, under a claim of ownership up to the filing of the action
in 1958. This finding of the existence of these facts, arrived at by the Court of Appeals after an examination of the
evidence presented by the parties, is conclusive as to them and can not be reviewed by us.
The law on prescription applicable to the case is that provided in Act 190 and not the provisions of the Civil Code,
since the possession started in 1933 or 1934 when the pertinent articles of the old Civil Code were not in force and
before the effectivity of the new Civil Code in 1950. Hence, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the
respondents acquired alluvial lot in question by acquisitive prescription is in accordance with law.

RULING: The decision of the Court of Appeals under review is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.
So ordered.