GR L 43346; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-43346; March 20, 1991
MARIO C. RONQUILLO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, DIRECTOR OF LANDS, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ROSENDO DEL ROSARIO, AMPARO DEL ROSARIO and FLORENCIA DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, the Del Rosarios, are the registered owners of a lot in Manila adjoining a dried-up portion of the old Estero Calubcub. Petitioner Mario Ronquillo has occupied this dried-up portion since 1945. The Del Rosarios filed an action to be declared the rightful owners of this dried-up riverbed, claiming it as riparian owners. Ronquillo moved to dismiss, asserting the land was public domain under the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands. The parties stipulated that both had filed separate miscellaneous sales applications for the land with the Bureau of Lands, which were still pending.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Del Rosarios, declaring them owners of the dried-up portion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Article 370 of the old Civil Code, which provides that the abandoned riverbed belongs to the riparian owners. It held the dried-up portion was private land, having naturally changed course around 1930.
ISSUE
Whether the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub belongs to the private respondents as riparian owners or forms part of the public domain.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centered on the cause of the drying up. The Court found that the estero did not dry up due to a natural change in the course of waters. Evidence, including a report from the City Engineer, established that the drying was caused by human intervention—specifically, the dumping of garbage and debris by adjoining landowners and the eventual construction of a covered drain. Consequently, Article 370 of the old Civil Code on accretion and alluvion does not apply, as its provisions govern only natural formations.
Since the drying was artificial, the dried riverbed remains part of the public domain, incapable of private appropriation. This conclusion is bolstered by the parties’ own acts of filing sales applications with the Bureau of Lands, which constitutes an admission that the land was public. Furthermore, the Bureau of Lands indicated that such applications for the estero were typically rejected because the City needed the land for drainage purposes. Therefore, the Del Rosarios cannot claim ownership as riparian owners. The dried-up portion is public land.