G.R. No. 18771; March 26, 1923
NICOLAS PANLILIO, EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN, and SIXTO TIMBOL, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ATILANO MERCADO, CIRIACO PIMPING, MANUEL REYES, and TELESFORO MARTINEZ, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiffs are owners of lands in Mexico, Pampanga, through which the Abacan River flowed until August 1919. Defendants Mercado and Pimping own lands east of the plaintiffs’ lands. A heavy flood caused the river to naturally change its course, abandoning its old bed through the plaintiffs’ lands and returning to a previous channel through the defendants’ lands. The old riverbed was surveyed and set apart as a public stream in the 1916-1917 cadastral survey. In 1920, defendants Mercado and Pimping, with the assistance of defendant District Engineer Reyes, began excavating the old bed to redirect the river back to its former course, prompting the plaintiffs to file an action for injunction and damages. Plaintiffs claimed ownership of the abandoned riverbed under Article 370 of the Civil Code. Defendants counterclaimed for damages, alleging plaintiffs’ placement of bamboo stakes in the river caused its change of course.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs acquired ownership of the abandoned riverbed upon the natural change in the river’s course, thereby entitling them to an injunction against the defendants’ efforts to restore the river to its old channel.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment absolving all parties from the complaint and counterclaim. The Court held that while Article 370 of the Civil Code provides that riverbeds abandoned due to a natural change in course belong to the riparian owners, this rule is not absolute for public streams. The bed of a public stream is of public ownership. The government is not automatically divested of this ownership by the natural change; abandonment requires an indication of the government’s acquiescence. Here, the government, through its functionaries, promptly acted to restore the river to its cadastrally determined bed, demonstrating no intent to abandon it. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not acquire ownership, and the defendants’ actions under official direction were lawful. The evidence for the defendants’ counterclaim was insufficient to prove the plaintiffs’ acts were the primary cause of the damage.