G.R. No. 219811, April 6, 2016
REX DACLISON, Petitioner, vs. EDUARDO BAYTION, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Eduardo Baytion, a co-owner and administrator of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 221507, filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry and Damages against petitioner Rex Daclison before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Baytion alleged that after the lease of a stall on the property to Leonida Dela Cruz expired in May 2008, Daclison and others took possession of that stall without his consent and used it for business without paying rent. Despite demands to vacate, Daclison refused.
Daclison, in his Answer, claimed that the original lessee was Antonio dela Cruz (later succeeded by Leonida and then Ernanie Dela Cruz). Daclison entered into a business venture with Ernanie in February 2008. He asserted that upon Baytion’s demand, he and Ernanie vacated the leased stall and transferred their business to an adjacent “filled-up portion” of land. This filled-up portion was created when Antonio, years earlier, had filled and leveled a down-sloping area between Baytion’s property and a creek after a riprap (stone wall) was constructed beside the creek. Daclison contended this filled-up portion was outside Baytion’s titled property. Despite an alleged barangay settlement, Baytion filed the complaint.
The MeTC dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to implead co-owners. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the MeTC lacked jurisdiction as the allegations did not constitute forcible entry (due to lack of prior physical possession by Baytion). The RTC, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, exercised original jurisdiction over what it deemed an accion publiciana (recovery of possession) and ruled in favor of Baytion, ordering Daclison to vacate and pay monthly compensation. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that Baytion, as co-owner, had a better right to possess the property, including the filled-up portion, which it considered an improvement.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Baytion has a better right of possession over the contested “filled-up portion” of land adjacent to his titled property.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision and Resolution, and DISMISSED the complaint.
The Court held that Baytion does not have a better right to possess the contested filled-up portion. The Court clarified that the disputed property is the filled-up area between the riprap and Baytion’s titled land, which Daclison had already vacated and surrendered to Baytion.
The Court rejected Baytion’s claim of ownership over the filled-up portion based on accretion or accession:
1. Not Accretion: Under Article 457 of the Civil Code, accretion requires that the deposit be gradual, imperceptible, and caused by the current of waters. The filled-up portion was man-made (through earth-filling by Antonio), not the exclusive work of nature. Thus, it is not an accretion.
2. Not Accession/Improvement: Under Article 445 of the Civil Code, improvements belong to the landowner if built, planted, or sown on the land. The Court emphasized the term “thereon,” meaning the improvement must be on the property itself. The filled-up portion was outside the metes and bounds of Baytion’s titled property; therefore, it cannot be considered an improvement or accession belonging to Baytion.
Since the filled-up portion is neither an accretion nor an accession to Baytion’s property, Baytion has no ownership or superior right of possession over it. Consequently, he has no cause of action to eject Daclison from that specific area. The complaint for possession was dismissed.