G.R. No. L-19570 September 14, 1967
JOSE V. HILARIO, JR., plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE CITY OF MANILA, defendant-appellee, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, CITY ENGINEER OF MANILA, FERNANDO BUSUEGO and EUGENIO SESE, defendants-appellants, MAXIMO CALALANG, intervenor and DIRECTOR OF MINES, intervenors.

FACTS

This is a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff-appellant Jose V. Hilario, Jr. following a Supreme Court decision dated April 27, 1967. The case involves a dispute over property boundaries and the extraction of gravel and sand. The Supreme Court’s decision had absolved the City of Manila and the Director of Public Works from liability for materials taken from a gravel pit but declared a portion of the area west of a line 20 meters east of a camachile tree as still belonging to Hilario. Hilario’s motion argues that: (1) the Supreme Court cannot make new factual findings unless the lower court’s findings were abusive or manifestly mistaken; (2) the area where materials were extracted is his property; and (3) there is no “secondary bank” to the west of the designated “New Accretion Area.”

ISSUE

The primary issue for reconsideration is whether the Supreme Court’s factual findings in its April 27, 1967 decision—specifically regarding the boundaries of Hilario’s property, the movement of the riverbank, and the areas from which materials were extracted—are justified and should stand.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court held that:
1. The appeal involved questions of fact, not purely of law, because the amount involved exceeded P200,000, giving the Supreme Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review all questions of fact and law. Therefore, the Court was not bound by the lower court’s factual findings and was required to review the entire evidence on record.
2. The Court’s factual findings were based on the evidence on record. It found that the lower court’s conclusion about the location where rice and corn were found was unsupported and impossible to execute properly. It also found that the defendants did not cause the unnatural widening of the river and that their extraction operations were confined to specific areas during specific periods, contrary to the lower court’s findings.
3. Regarding Hilario’s claim that the gravel pit was high and not part of the riverbank, the Court cited evidence (Exhibit 1-Calalang) showing that before 1950, even the higher portions of the pit were submerged by ordinary floods. The non-inundation after 1950 was due to the eastward movement of the river and its western bank.
4. The Court clarified that the term “secondary bank line” was used merely for identification purposes to refer to a lateral zone west of the New Accretion Area. The periphery of the west bank was in that area only from 1945 to 1949, after which it receded eastward with the river.
5. The defendants were absolved from liability because there was insufficient evidence proving they extracted materials beyond the receding periphery of the west bank. The evidence indicated they followed the eastward movement of the riverbank and were prevented from operating beyond its outer borders.
6. The evidence presented by Hilario in his motion had already been considered and was found less persuasive. His witnesses were not geologists and their constant presence at the site was not established, whereas the defendants’ witnesses were more qualified and acquainted with the area.