GR 116290; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116290; December 8, 2000
DIONISIA P. BAGAIPO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LEONOR LOZANO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dionisia Bagaipo, the registered owner of Lot No. 415, filed a complaint for recovery of possession against respondent Leonor Lozano. Bagaipo claimed that a 29,162-square-meter portion (Lot 415-C) of her titled property was illegally occupied by Lozano. She further alleged she lost 37,901 square meters (Lot 415-B) due to a change in the course of the Davao River around 1968. To support her claim, she presented a private survey plan by Geodetic Engineer Gersacio Magno and testimonial evidence from a longtime resident.
Lozano countered that the Davao River did not change course and that the reduction in Bagaipo’s land was due to gradual erosion. He asserted that the land he occupied was an accretion to his own titled property, formed by silt deposits from the river over a long period. He presented witnesses, including tenants, and evidence of a pending land registration case for the alleged accretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of Bagaipo’s complaint for recovery of possession.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The core legal logic rests on the proper application of the rules on accretion and the evidentiary value of the survey plan. The trial court, affirmed by the CA, found as a fact that the reduction of Bagaipo’s land was caused by erosion, not by a change in the river’s course. This factual finding is binding and not subject to review. Under Article 457 of the Civil Code, accretion caused by the current of a river belongs to the riparian owner. Since Lozano’s property adjoins the bank where the alluvial deposit formed, he is entitled to the accretion.
Crucially, the Court held that Bagaipo failed to prove her ownership over the disputed Lot 415-C. The private survey plan she commissioned, which was not verified and approved by the Director of Lands as required by law, was correctly denied probative value. Citing Titong v. Court of Appeals, such an unapproved plan is a mere private document whose authenticity and due execution must be proven. Its admission into evidence does not compel the court to believe its contents. Bagaipo did not demonstrate that the contested area was within the boundaries of her titled property. Consequently, her action for recovery of possession based on a Torrens title must fail for lack of sufficient proof.