G.R. No. 108065 July 6, 1993
SPOUSES FELIX BAES AND RAFAELA BAES, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The controversy began in 1962 when the government dug a canal on a private parcel of land, Lot 2958, to streamline the Tripa de Gallina creek. Felix Baes later acquired this lot, registered it under TCT No. 10990, and subdivided it into three lots: Lot 2958-A (28,889 sq.m.), Lot 2958-B (3,588 sq.m., totally occupied by the canal), and Lot 2958-C (452 sq.m.). In exchange for Lot 2958-B, the government gave Baes a lot of the same area, Lot 3271-A, through a Deed of Exchange of Real Property dated June 20, 1970. The soil from the canal was used to fill up the old creek bed. Baes subsequently had Lot 2958-C and a portion of Lot 2958-A resurveyed and subdivided, resulting in new titles, including TCT No. 14405 for Lot 1-B (826 sq.m.). In 1978, the Republic discovered that Lot 1-B (TCT No. 14405) covered a filled-up portion of the creek (Lot 3611 of the Pasay Cadastre) and that Lot 2958-C had been unlawfully enlarged through resurvey. On November 17, 1982, the Republic filed a petition for cancellation of TCT Nos. 14405 and 29592 to 29595. Baes did not object to the cancellation of some titles and could not prove government use of a portion of Lot 2 under TCT No. 29593. The trial court ordered the cancellation of the specified titles and the reversion of the original Lot 2958-C to its pre-resurvey status. The remaining dispute concerns Lot 1-B (TCT No. 14405), which petitioners claim as their own under Article 461 of the Civil Code, arguing they became owners of the old riverbed after its natural change of course. The government contends petitioners were fully compensated through the 1970 exchange.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are entitled to ownership of the abandoned riverbed (Lot 1-B covered by TCT No. 14405) under Article 461 of the Civil Code, despite having previously exchanged the affected lot (Lot 2958-B) for government property.

RULING

No. The petition is DENIED. While Article 461 of the Civil Code provides that abandoned river beds belong to owners whose lands are occupied by the new course, and petitioners correctly argue that compensation is even more due when the change is artificial, they have already been fully compensated. The government and Felix Baes voluntarily entered into a Deed of Exchange of Real Property on June 20, 1970, where Lot 2958-B (totally occupied by the canal) was exchanged for Lot 3271-A of equal area and value. Allowing petitioners to acquire ownership of the dried-up portion (Lot 1-B) would constitute double compensation and unjust enrichment at the expense of the state. The exchange was a fair compensation; if it had failed, the government could have taken the land under eminent domain upon payment of just compensation. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s cancellation of the titles is upheld.