G.R. No. L-12730; August 22, 1960
C.N. HODES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AMADOR D. GARCIA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff C.N. Hodges acquired Lot No. 908, bounded on the north by the Salog River, and holds a Transfer Certificate of Title. Defendant Amador D. Garcia owns the adjoining Lot No. 2290 on the opposite side of the river. From 1917 until 1939, the course of the Salog River gradually eroded the bank towards Jaro and simultaneously deposited sediments towards Lot No. 2290. By 1950, an accretion had formed along Lot No. 2290. Defendant applied for and obtained registration of this added area under the Land Registration Act, with the cadastral court decreeing it as an accretion to his lot, and Original Certificate of Title No. O-229 was issued to him in 1952. Plaintiff did not oppose this registration. Plaintiff filed this action to recover possession of a portion (Lot No. 908-Q) allegedly separated from his land by a “natural change” in the river’s course, claiming the separation was abrupt (avulsion). The parties stipulated that the accretion towards Lot No. 2290 was gradual, that defendant had been in possession since 1950, and that plaintiff and his predecessors had never been in actual possession of the disputed lot since its loss. The land had also been previously litigated and adjudged to belong to defendant as an accretion.

ISSUE

Whether the land in dispute, formed by the change in the Salog River’s course, belongs to the plaintiff (as a severed portion of his titled land due to avulsion) or to the defendant (as an accretion to his riparian property).

RULING

The disputed land belongs to defendant Amador D. Garcia as an accretion. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The stipulated facts established that the increase in area of Lot No. 2290 resulted from gradual alluvion or accretion from 1917 to 1939, not from a sudden avulsion. In the absence of evidence showing a sudden change, the presumption is that the change was gradual. Under Article 366 of the old Civil Code (Article 457 of the new), accretions gradually received by river banks from the current become the property of the riparian owners. This principle applies even against a registered owner, as registration does not protect against gradual diminution or increase of land due to river currents. The defendant’s title to the accretion, obtained through proper registration proceedings unopposed by the plaintiff, is valid.