GR 73465; (September, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 73465 September 7, 1989
LEONIDA CUREG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, heirs of Francisco and Domingo Gerardo, filed a complaint for quieting of title against petitioners, the heirs of Antonio Carniyan. They claimed ownership of a “motherland” allegedly possessed since time immemorial by their predecessors, which had accreted approximately three hectares due to the northward movement of the Cagayan River. They further alleged they had verbally sold this property to co-respondent Domingo Apostol. Petitioners, in defense, asserted that the subject land in dispute was an accretion to their own titled property, Original Certificate of Title No. P-19093, and that they had been in possession and cultivation of it for many years. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring Domingo Apostol the absolute owner, a decision affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the subject land, an alluvial deposit of approximately 5.5 hectares, is an accretion belonging to petitioners’ registered land or if it is part of a “motherland” owned by private respondents through their predecessors-in-interest.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic centered on the application of Article 457 of the Civil Code and the burden of proof regarding the existence of the claimed “motherland.” The Court found private respondents’ evidence insufficient to prove the existence of their alleged “motherland.” Their tax declarations did not match the description of the disputed property, and their claim of possession since 1894 relied on the unreliable testimony of an interested witness. Conversely, evidence, including a Bureau of Lands order, indicated petitioners’ predecessor, Antonio Carniyan, was found occupying and cultivating the accretion. Therefore, the disputed land was correctly deemed an accretion to petitioners’ titled property under Article 457, which grants accretion to the owners of lands adjoining riverbanks. However, the Court clarified that while the accretion belongs to the riparian owner, the approximately 5.5-hectare increase does not automatically become registered land merely because the lot receiving it is titled; it must be brought under the Torrens system through the proper registration process. The complaint for quieting of title was dismissed.