G.R. No. 94283; March 4, 1991
Maximo Jagualing, Anuncita Jagualing and Misamis Oriental Concrete Products, Inc., petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals (Fifteenth Division), Janita F. Eduave and Rudygondo Eduave, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Janita and Rudygondo Eduave filed an action to quiet title over a parcel of land, an island formed in the Tagoloan River. They claimed inheritance from their father and subsequent exclusive ownership through an extrajudicial partition. They asserted possession since 1949, despite the land being eroded by a 1964 typhoon and later re-formed through alluvial deposits, which they began cultivating in 1970. They presented tax declarations, a mortgage, and a mining permit as evidence of ownership. Petitioners Maximo Jagualing, et al., denied this claim, asserting they were the real owners who began occupying the island in 1969. They presented their own tax declarations, receipts, and evidence of improvements. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling the island was part of the riverbed, thus public domain outside the commerce of man, but recognized petitioners’ preferential right to its use.

ISSUE

Who has a better right to an island formed by alluvial deposits in a non-navigable and non-flotable river: the party in actual possession or the owner of the riparian land nearest to the island?

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the private respondents, the riparian owners. The legal logic is anchored on Article 465 of the Civil Code, which governs alluvial formations. The Court found the Tagoloan River at the locus was non-navigable and non-flotable. Under Article 465, islands formed by accretion in such rivers belong to the owners of the nearest banks or margins. The island in question was found to be nearer to the property of the private respondents, as established by the evidence, including a survey plan. Consequently, ownership vested in them by operation of law, irrespective of the petitioners’ prior physical possession. The trial court’s classification of the island as part of the public domain was erroneous, as that applies to islands in navigable rivers, not the private accretion governed by Article 465. The Court emphasized that the law allocates ownership to the riparian landowner to prevent disputes and ensure the developed use of the accretion, which is considered a natural increment to their estate. Therefore, the private respondents, as the owners of the margin nearest to the alluvion, acquired ownership by law, which petitioners’ possession could not supersede.