G.R. No. L-19570, April 27, 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; DIRECTOR OF MINES, intervenor.

FACTS

Dr. Jose Hilario owned a large tract of land in San Mateo, Rizal, bounded on the west by the San Mateo River. A dike and stonewall protected the property. In 1937, a great flood caused the river to leave its original bed, meander into the Hilario estate, and segregate a lenticular strip of land. The disputed area is on the eastern side of this strip. In 1945, the U.S. Army opened a sand and gravel plant, excavating materials from areas near the river, including this strip. A claim for damages was paid by the U.S. Army. In 1947, the plant was turned over to the defendants (the City of Manila, the Director of Public Works, the City Engineer of Manila, and engineers Busuego and Sese), who continued extractions. Plaintiff Jose Hilario, Jr., the heir, filed a complaint for injunction and damages, claiming the extractions were from his private property. Defendants asserted the area was part of the public riverbed. Intervenors Bureau of Mines and Maximo Calalang joined the suit. The lower court initially rendered a decision ordering the City of Manila and the Director of Public Works to pay solidarily for materials extracted and perpetually enjoining extraction from the northern two-fifths of the disputed area, which it declared as plaintiff’s property. Upon reconsideration, the lower court modified its decision, dismissing the complaint against the City of Manila and the money claim against the Director of Public Works, but maintained that the northern two-fifths belonged to plaintiff and enjoined defendants from extracting there. Both plaintiff and certain defendants appealed.

ISSUE

The primary legal issue is whether the banks of a new course opened by a river through private property, after it naturally abandons its old bed, are of public ownership.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that under the applicable laws—the old Civil Code and the Law of Waters of August 3, 1866—the banks of the new river course are of public ownership. Article 339 of the old Civil Code categorically states that riverbanks are property of public ownership. Furthermore, Article 73 of the Law of Waters defines “banks of a river” as “those lateral strips or zones of its bed,” indicating that banks are part of the riverbed. Since all riverbeds are of public dominion, the banks forming part thereof are also public. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Article 372 of the old Civil Code, which addresses the new bed of a river changing course, omits mention of the banks and thus excludes them from public ownership. The Court held that the banks, as integral parts of the bed, share its public character. Consequently, the area determined to be within the banks of the new river course is public land. The case was remanded to the lower court for determination of the precise boundaries of the new riverbed and its banks based on the evidence, to ascertain which portions, if any, remained the private property of the plaintiff.