VOL.

147,JANUARY7,1987
37
Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

No.L48297.January7,1987.*
DIOGENES TUASON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
ISABELESTEVEZDETUANQUI,respondents.
No.L48265.January7,1987.*
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
ISABELESTEVEZDETUANQUI,respondents.
PublicLands;QuietingofTitle;Property;Thereisampleevidencethatlandin
questionwasformedbynaturalaccretionandthusbelongstotheprivateriparian
ownerwhichDirectorofLandscannotconvey.Ontheotherhand,thereisenough
evidencethatthelandinquestionwasformedbyaccretion;thusitbelongstothe
riparian owner, pursuant to Art. 457 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Consequently,theDirectorofLandshasnojurisdictionoveritandanyconveyance
madebyhimofanyprivatelandisnullandvoid.
Actions; Attorneys; Notices; Judgment; A change of address of a counsel
without notice to the court and adverse party does not constitute excusable
negligenceastorelieveapartyfromeffectsofadversedecision,Wenowcometo
thefourthassignmentoferror.Thiswastoucheduponextensivelyintherulingofthe
trial court and in the ruling of the respondent Appellate Court to the effect that
severalnotices(rethesubmissionofthecasefordecision)hadbeendulysentby
registeredmailtotheattorneysinvolved.Wefullyagreewithsaidfinding.Note
further that on appeal, the respondent Court of Appeals, ruled: The alleged
excusable negligence for failure to claim the mail addressed to counsel for the
defendantbecauseofchangeofaddresswithoutnotificationofsuchchangetothe
partiesandtotheCourtisnotavalidgroundoranexcuseforfailuretoappearforthe
hearing set forth in said motion, considering the certification of the Acting Mail
OperationChief,RegistryDivisionthatnolessthanthree(3)noticesweresenttothe
addresseethereinfailedtoclaimthemail.xxx.

APPEALbycertioraritoreviewthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.

38

38
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
PARAS,J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari to review the decision of the Court of
AppealsinCAG.R.No.46861R,whereinsaidcourtaffirmedintotowith
costsagainstappellantDiogenesTuasonthedecisionofthelowercourtin
CivilCaseNo.1851,anactiontoremovecloudsoverrealpropertywith
damagesandpreliminaryinjunction,whichdispositiveportionreadsas
follows:
WHEREFORE,theestateofJuanEstevezrepresentedbyIsabelEstevezdeTuanqui
isherebydeclaredtheownerofLotNo.109oftheCadastralSurveyofLegazpiand
thedefendant,DiogenesTuazon,isherebyorderedtoreconveythelotembracedin
OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.40andtopurgesaidtitletothelienintheamountof
P4.900.00 and, if he fails to do so, a writ of execution will issue against the
defendant,DiogenesTuazon,forthesaidamount,andtopaytheplaintifftheamount
ofP120.00annuallyfrom1952untilhevacatesLot109,withcostsagainstthesaid
defendant.
SOORDERED."
(pp.8485,RecordonAppeal)

To have a better grasp of the antecedent facts and issues of the case,
quotedhereunderisthepertinentportionoftheassaileddecisionofthe
appellatecourt:
ThisisanappealfromthedecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofAlbay,BranchII,
at Legaspi City, in Civil Case No. 1851, an action to remove clouds over real
propertywithdamagesandpreliminaryinjunction.
Thecomplaintfiledbytheplaintiff,administratrixofthelateJuanEstevez,states
thefollowingmaterialaverments:
1. 2.
TbattheestateofJuanEstevez,deceased,istheregisteredownerandthejudicial
administratrixhasbeenandstillisintheactualpossessionofthefollowing
describedrealproperties:
2. (1)
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.390(RT343(755)oftheRegisterofDeedsof
Albay.AparceloflandofNo.1068A
VOL.147,JANUARY7,1937

39

39
Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

1. SubdivisionplanPSU1290,beingaportionofLotNo.1068oftheCadastral
SurveyofLegaspi,G.L.R.O.Cad.RecordsNo.860,withallthebuildingsand
improvementsthereon,situatedinLegaspi,Albay.BoundedontheNEbyLot
1068BofsaidsubdivisionplanS.E.byLot1069W.byKapantawanRiver;
andNW. byCalleMercadocontaining anarea of TWOHUNDRED(200)
squaremetersmoreorless.TechnicaldescriptionappearsfullyontheTorrens
TitlemortgagedtothePNB.
2. (2)
AnotherparceloflandadjacenttotheWestoftheprecedingparcel,Lot1068A,
situatedinLegaspi,Albay.BoundedontheNorth,WestandSouthbylands
formedbyaccretionand/ordryingupoftheoldriverbedoftheKapantawan
River,andontheEastbyLot1068A,containingatotalareaofonethousand
fiftynine(1,059)squaremeters,moreorless.Thefirstparcelisdeclaredunder
TaxNo.12375andassessedatP400.00,whilethehouseconstructedunder
TaxNo.8975andvaluedatP700.00.
3. 3.
ThatthefirstparceloflandhasbeenregisteredunderAct496since1916,withthe
KapantawanRiverasthenaturalboundarytotheWestbutsubsequentlyby
accretionthrutheaccumulationofalluvialdepositswestofLot1068Athe
parceloflanddescribedinpar.2ofthiscomplaintwasformed.ThelateJuan
Estevezandhisheirsafterhisdemisetookimmediatepossessionthereafterand
improvedthesame.Aresidentialhousewasconstructedthereonwithcement
footings,whichwashoweverdestroyedbytheTyphoonTRIXinOctober
1952.Uptothepresentthecementfootingsarestillthereandatoiletstill
existsthereinusedbythelesseeoftheplaintiffonLot!068A;
4. 4.
ThatthedefendantDiogenesTuazonpresentlypretendscertainrightsovera
portionofthesecondparceloflandandisthreateningtodestroythetoiletof
theplaintiffthereinconstructed.Thisdefendantfurtherintendstoconstructa
buildingofpermanentnatureovertheoldsiteofthebuildingoftheplaintiff
estatedestroyedbythetyphoontrix;
5. 5.
ThattheplaintiffisinformedandsobelievesthatthedefendantDiogenesTuazon
acquiredbypurchasethehouseofPATRICIOandMARIAESTEVEZ,

constructedpartlyonLot1068Aandonapartofthesecondparcelofland.To
thishouseanallegedannexisbeingconstructedand/ortobeconstructedby
thesaiddefendanttoeventuallyoccupythesiteoftheoldbuUdingofthe
plaintiffandthetoUet.InaletterdatedDecember28,1957,defen
40

40
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

1. dantDiogenesTuazonwithuncalledforaudacitysoughttocompeltheplaintiff
toremovethesaidtoilet;
2. 6.
ThattheplaintiffisIikewiseinformedandsobelievesthatdefendantDiogenes
TuazonappliedwiththedefendantDirectorofLandsforthepurchaseoflease
ofthesecondparceloflandunderthemistakenbeliefthatsaidlandformspart
ofthepublicdomain,disposableunderthepubliclandlaw.Thatthesecond
parceloflandistheprivatepropertyoftheplaintiffestateandtheheirsby
rightofaccretion.ThedefendantDirectorofLandsoranyoneactinginhis
behalfmaynotdisposeofthesame.Noactionsofarhasbeenhadonthe
applicationofthedefendantDiogenesTuazon;
3. 7.
Thatpriortothefilingofthisaction,defendantstriedtomakeasurveyofthe
secondparceloflandbutplaintiffsuspendedandprotestedanysuchsurvey.
DefendantDiogenesTuazonunderfalserepresentationswiththeOfficeofthe
MayorofLegaspi,Albay,recentlysecuredabuildingpermittoconstructa
buildingonthesecondparcelofland;
4. 8.
ThatbyreasonofthehostileactsofthedefendantDiogenesTuazonandthe
apparentdesireofsaiddefendanttoripenwhateverpretensionshehasoverthe
secondparceloflandintoavalidrightbyapplyingforitsuseandoccupation
withthedefendantDirectorofLandsacloudhasbeencreatedoverthesaid
parcelofland,whichneedtoberemovedatonce.Intheeventthatafterthe
serviceofprocess,thedefendantDirectorofLandsdecidetoclaimthesecond
parceloflandaspartofthepublicdomain,thenplaintiffmaintainsthatthe
saidpropertyisaprivatelandbyrightofaccretion;
5. 9.
Thatevenadmittingarguendoonlythatthesaidstripoflanddescribedasparcel(a)
ofthiscomplaintformspartofthepubliclanddisposableunderthepublicland

(whichcontentionishardlyallowable)yetbyreasonofpriorityofpossession,
improvements,andclaim,theplaintiffisentitledtoitsadjudicationasagainst
thedefendantDiogenesTuazon;
6. 10.
Thattheactsofdefendanthavebeendonewiththeutmostbadfaith.Hehasfull
knowledgeoftherightsoftheplaintiffoverthepropertynowdisputed.
PlaintiffhasbeenforcedtogotoCourtinordertoprotecttherightsofthe
plaintiffestateresultingintheexpenseofPl.OOO.OOforattorneysfees
beforethisCourtalone,plusadditionalexpensesonappeal;
7. 11.
Thatbytheunjustactsofusurpationcommittedandthreatenedtobedonebythe
defendantTuazon,plaintiffisentitledtoactualandmoraldamagesinthesum
ofP2.000.00;partlyforuse
VOL.147,JANUARY7,1987

41
41

Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

oflandbyTuazon;(RecordonAppeal,pp.27)
Theplaintiffaskedfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctionwhichthe
lowercourtgrantedandawritwasissuedonJanuary2,1958.(Ibid.,pp.712)
ThedefendantDiogenesTuazonfiledhisanswerdenyingthematerialaverments
ofthecomplaintandasspecialdefensesandcounterclaimavers:
ASFIRSTSPECIALDEFENSES:
Defendantalleges:
14.Thatthelandinquestionwasnotformedbyaccretionbutbythereclamationproject
ofthegovernmentandthesamewasrecentlyleftdryduetotheconstructionoftheculvert
forLegaspidrainage,consequentlybythesecondparceloflandformspartofthepublic
domain;
ASSECONDSPECIALDEFENSES:
Defendantalleges:
15. That assuming without conceding that the second parcel of land is the private
propertyoftheplaintiff,herrightstorecoverownership,thereofhasprescribedasdefendant
andhispredecessorininterestshasoccupiedthelandopenlyandadverselyformorethan
tenyears;
ASTHIRDSPECIALDEFENSES:

Defendantalleges:
16.Thatassumingthatthelandinquestionwasformerlyriverbedandleftdrybecauseit
wasabandonedthroughthenaturalchangeinthecourseofthewater,plaintiff,although
claimingtobetheadjoiningowner,isnottheownerthereofforthefollowingreasons:
Firstly,theriverbedwasabandonednotbynaturalchangebutbythereclamationprojectofthe
governmentandtheconstructionoftheculvertforthedrainageofLegaspiwhichmadetheriver
bedhigherthanitssource;
Secondly,assumingthatthelandinquestionwas

42

42
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

formerly river bed of the Kapantawan River which was abandoned through the natural
changeinthecourseofthewaters,theownersthereofarethosewhoselandareoccupiedby
thenewcourseoftheriverandnottheplaintiffasthelandinquestionwasleftdryonor
abouttheyear1955;

Said defendant Tuazon asks for the amount of P5.000.00 as actual and moral
damagesincludingattorneysfees.(Ibid.,pp.1719)
Thedefendant,TheDirectorofLands,throughtheSolicitorGeneral,deniesthe
materialavermentsofthecomplaintandavers:
"(5)thefearthattheDirectorofLandswillproceedinadjudicatingthedisputedparcelof
publiclandsexistonlyintheimaginationofplaintiffwhoisnotevencertainthatapublic
landapplicationwasfUedforthelanddescribedinthecomplaintandthereforenotavalid
groundfortheissuanceofinjunction,muchlessanexparteinjunction.
BywayofaffirmativedefensetothisHonorableCourtalleges:
Thatthepetitiondoesnotshowthatthedefendantisdoing,threatens,orisabouttodo,
orisprocuringorsufferingtobedonesomeactsinviolationofplaintiffsrights,tendingto
renderthejudgmentineffectiveandthereforefallshortofthelegalrequisitestoentitlethe
petitionertotheinjunctionissued.(Ibid.,pp.2223)

Aftertrial,thelowercourtdismissedthecomplaintwithcostsagainsttheplaintiff.
(Ibid.,pp.3141)
OnMarch14,1961,theplaintiff,assistedbyanewcounsel,filedaMotionfor
NewTrialbasedonnewlydiscoveredevidenceThelowercourtgrantedthenewtrial
and admitted the newly discovered evidence (Exhs. A" and B") with the
testimoniesoftheplaintiffswitnesses.
Despitethependencyofthecase,intheinterim,theDirectorofLandsonMay
18,1967,issuedtohiscodefendant,DiogenesTuazon,MiscellaneousSalesPatent

No.2850tothelandinquestionforwhichO.C.T.No.40oftheRegisterofDeedsof
Legaspi City was issued in the name of the latter. The defendant Tuazon also
executedamortgageoverthepropertyinquestiontoguaranteealoanintheamount
ofP4.900.00.Thesefactswerebroughttotheattentionofthelowercourtbynew
counsel.(Ibid.,pp.7377)
VOL.147,JANUARY7,1987

43
43

Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

OnMay29,1968,thelowercourtrendereditsdecision,thedispositiveportionof
whichreads:
WHEREFORE, the estate of Juan Estevez represented by Isabel Estevez de
TuanquiisherebydeclaredtheownerofLotNo.109oftheCadastralSurveyof
Legaspiandthedefendant,DiogenesTuazon,isherebyorderedtoreconveythelot
embracedinOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.40andtopurgesaidtitleofthelienin
theamountofP4,900.00and,ifhefailstodoso,awritofexecutionwillissueagainst
thedefendant,DiogenesTuazon,forthesaidamount,andtopaytheplaintiffthe
amountofP120.00annuallyfrom1952untilhevacatesLot109,withcostsagainst
thesaiddefendant.
SOORDERED.
GivenatLegaspiCity,Philippines,thisMay29,1968.
(Sgd.)EZEKIELS.GRAGEDA
Judge
(RecordonAppeal,pp.8485)

On August 28, 1968, the decision rendered on May 29, 1968 having
becomefinalandexecutory,uponmotionfiledbycounselfortheplaintiff,
aWritofExecutionforthesatisfactionofthejudgmentwasissued.(Ibid.,
pp.8590).Thewritofexecutionissuedwashoweversuspendedupon
filingonOctober21,1968bythedefendantDiogenesTuazonofaPetition
forRelieffromJudgment(Ibid.,pp.92100).
Upon opposition to the petition for relief from judgment filed by
counselfortheplaintiff,showingindubitablytothecourtthatplaintiffs
motiontosubmitthecasefordecision,datedJanuary10,1968,includinga
supplemental motion dated January 11, 1968, was duly served on

defendantscounsel,thepetitionwasdeniedonDecember6,1968(Ibid.,
pp.105108).
ThedefendantTuazon,upondenialofthemotionforreconsiderationof
thedenialofthepetitionforrelieffromjudgmentappealedtothisCourt.
ThedefendantDiogenesTuazonassignedthefollowingerrorsallegedly
committedbythetrialcourt:
FIRSTASSIGNMENTOFERROR.
44

44
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

ThelowercourterredinholdingthattheWesternboundaryofLot1068A
wasariveronthebasisofallegednewlydiscoveredevidencepresentedat
thenewtrial,disregardingtheocularfindingsofthesameCourtandthe
admissionsoftheparties.
SECONDASSIGNMENTOFERROR.
ThelowerCourterredinholdingthatLot109wasformedbythealluvial
accumulationofdepositthroughtheactionofthecurrentofriver,despite
itsownfindingthattheareaofwhichLot109wasapartwasadmittedlya
swamp.
THIRDASSIGNMENTOFERROR.
ThelowerCourterredinnotholdingthatappelleescomplaintisbarredby
estoppelinthatshehadpreviouslyfiledanapplicationforsalespatent
withthegovernmentbutthatitwasrejectedinfavorofappellantTuazon.
FOURTHASSIGNMENTOFERROR.
ThelowerCourterredinnotgivingduecoursetothepetitionforrelief
fromjudgmentwhenthefactsundisputablyshowthatthejudgmentwas
procured thru fraud and/or accident or excusable negligence, or that
proceedings antecedent thereto were had without notice to appellants.
(TuazonsBrief,pp.121&)
ThedefendantDirectorofLandsallegedthefollowingerrors:
I.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LOT NO. 109 WAS
FORMED BY ALLUVIAL DEPOSIT THROUGH THE ACTION OF THE
CURRENTOFTHERIVER'AND,THEREFORE,BELONGSTOTHEESTATE
OFJUANESTEVEZASOWNEROFTHEMOTHERESTATE.
II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE LOT IN QUESTION WAS AN
ACCRETION,THELOWERCOURTNEVERTHELESSALSOERREDINNOT
FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF, AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE
ESTATEOFJUANESTEVEZ,HADALREADYWAIVEDAND/ORLOST
VOL.147,JANUARY7,1987

45
45

Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

WHATEVER,RIGHTSHEORESTEVEZESTATEMIGHTHAVEHADOVER
SAIDLOTINFAVOROFTHEESTATE.
III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE LAND IN
QUESTION AS PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN UNDER THE
ADMINISTRATIONOFTHEDEFENDANTDIRECTOROFLANDS."(Appellant
Dir.ofLandsBrief,pp.12)
ThesimpleissuetoberesolvedinthisappealistheproperapplicationofArticle
457oftheNewCivilCoderelatingtotherightofariparianownerofrealproperties
overtheadditionalestateformedthereinbyaccretion.(pp.3544,Rollo)

Inthedispositiveportionofitsdecision,theappellatecourtaffirmedin
toto the lower courts findings, after a careful consideration of all
evidencespresented.
Both petitioners Diogenes Tuason and Director of Lands filed their
separatemotionsforreconsiderationwhichweredeniedbytheappellate
court.Hence,petitionersfiledseparatepetitionersforreviewonappealby
way of certiorari. The two cases are now consolidated, with several
assignmentsoferror,whichcanbesummarizedintotwo:
1. 1.
TheCourtofAppealsgrievouslyerredindeclaringthattherewas
accretionandconsequentlyinnotdeclaringthesameaspublicland
subjecttothedispositionoftheDirectorofLands;and

2. 2.
TheCourtofAppealsgrievouslyerredinnotgrantingpetitioners
petitionforrelieffromjudgment.
Afteradiligentstudyandexaminationoftherecordsofthecase,Wefind
noreasontoreversethefindingsoffactsorconclusionsarrivedatbythe
lowercourts.Inrulingthattherewasindeedaccretion,theappellatecourt
declaresclearlythat:
Therecordsshowindubitablytheexistenceofariverwestofthetitledpropertyof
theappellee(AnnexesA"andB").AnnexAtothemotionfornewtrialistheplan
ofLot1068showingthatthepropertyoftheappelleehasasitsnaturalboundaryto
the west the Kapantawan River. Annex B" to the Motion for New Trial is the
cadastralplanofLegaspiPortconfirmingtheexistenceofsaid
46

46
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

naturalboundarytothewestasKapantawanRiver.Thisfactwhichwas
establishedduringtheprevioustrialofthecaseonthetestimonyofDr.
Estevezwasmademoreindubitableduringthenewtrialbytestimoniesof
witnesses, Jorge A. Logroo, Soledad Maristela andJosefa O. Pineda.
Logroo was a government official who plotted andrelocated on the
ground the development plan of Legaspi andMaristela and Pineda are
adjoiningpropertyownerswhotestifiedcategoricallytotheexistenceof
thenaturalboundarytothewestofappelleespropertyastheKapantawan
River.(pp.4445,record)
The lower courts reached such conclusion not whimsically but after
painstakingly considering the attending circumstances and the entire
evidence.Worthmentioningalsoisthefactthatthesametrialjudgewho
madethefactualfindingthatKapantawanRiverdidnotexistinthearea,
grantedamotionfornewtrialtoreceivenewlydiscoveredevidence.The
trialcourt,initsamendeddecision,emphasized:
Atthenewtrial,theplaintiffpresentedoralanddocumentaryevidencetendingto
establishedthatboundaryofLotNo.109totheWestwasactuallyariver.After
carefulconsiderationofsaidevidence,theCourtisconvincedthatformerlythereal
boundaryofLot109totheWestwasariver.

Inviewoftheforegoingfinding,itisnowclearthatLot109wasformedbythe
alluvial accumulation of deposit through the action of the current of the river.
ThereforeArticle457oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesapplies.Saidarticlereads:
ART.457.Totheownersoflandadjoiningthebanksofriversbelongtheaccretionwhich
theygraduallyreceivefromtheeffectsofthecurrentofthewaters.

Asbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendant,DiogenesTuazon,theformerhasthe
righttoLotNo.109."(pp.8384,RecordonAppeal)

Itisarguedbypetitionerthatocularinspectionsmustbegivenprobative
valueOcularinspectionwasindeedmadebythetrialjudgetoestablishthe
condition of the area a generation before the ocular inspection was
conducted. Said ocular inspection cannot be given too much probative
valuebecausetheremightbephysicalchangesthroughthepassageofthe
yearsthecauseofwhichcannoteasilybedeterminedbysaid
VOL.147,JANUARY7,1987

47
47

Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

ocular inspection. Moreover, the evidence submitted by petitioners

themselvesshowthatthesourceofthewaterintheareainquestionhad
been cut off from the sea even before the Japanese invasion of the
Philippines.Theevidenceforprivaterespondentshowsthatsubsequentto
theyear1916,gradualaccumulationofthedepositscoveredbythecurrent
oftheKapantawanRiverhadalreadytakenplace.Alsowitnessforthe
petitioner Mr. Juan Firaza, Acting Provincial Land Officer of Albay
testifiedasfollows:
Q
YouhavenopersonalknowledgeastowhetherLot109inthiscaseexistedbecauseofthe
dryingupoftheTibuRiverorbecauseitwasfilledupbytheadjacentownerorbecauseit
wasduetotheaccumulationofsediment,youdonotknowthat?
A
No,sir.(TSN,May16,1960,p.78).(p.137,record)

Ontheotherhand,thereisenoughevidencethatthelandinquestionwas
formedbyaccretion;thusitbelongstotheriparianowner,pursuanttoArt.
457oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippines.Consequently,theDirectorof
Landshasnojurisdictionoveritandanyconveyancemadebyhimofany
privatelandisnullandvoid.
Wenowcometothesecondassignmentoferror.Thiswastouched
uponextensivelyintherulingofthetrialcourtandintherulingofthe

respondent Appellate Court to the effect that several notices (re the
submissionofthecasefordecision)hadbeendulysentbyregisteredmail
totheattorneysinvolved.Wefullyagreewithsaidfinding.
Notefurtherthatonappeal,therespondentCourtofAppeals,ruled:
Theallegedexcusablenegligenceforfailuretoclaimthemailaddressedtocounsel
forthedefendantbecauseofchangeofaddresswithoutnotificationofsuchchangeto
thepartiesandtotheCourtisnotavalidgroundoranexcuseforfailuretoappearfor
thehearingsetforthinsaidmotion,consideringthecertificationoftheActingMail
OperationChief,RegistryDivisionthatnolessthanthree(3)noticesweresenttothe
addresseethereinfailedtoclaimthemail.xxx.(DecisionofrespondentCourtof
Appeals,AnnexC"ofPetitionofDiogenesTuazon,p.11)(p.140,records)
48

48
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Tuasonvs.CourtofAppeals

Insupportoftheircontention,petitionerscitetheprincipleslaiddownin
thecaseofVecinov.CourtofAppeals,L38612,March29,1977(p.140,
Record). Such contention was aptly refuted by respondents in their
memorandum,towit:
ThefactualsettingoftheVecinocaseisentirelydifferentfromthefactsobtainingin
thiscase.Saidcasedoesnotinvolveasituationwhichobtainsinthiscase,wherea
counseltransferredfromhisofficeaddressofrecordwithoutnotifyingthecourtand
partiesthereof,asheisrequiredtodoundertheRulesofCourt.Heisusinghisvery
negligence and admitted violation of the Rules of Court as a shield to avoid
consequences unfavorable to his case. Therefore, there was no fraud, accident,
mistakeorexcusablenegligence,uponwhichapetitionforrelieffromjudgmentcan
onlybegranted.
Moreimportantly,thereisnoshowingthatpetitionerDiogenesTuazonsrights
withrespecttothedeterminationofthemeritsofthecasewereharmedoradversely
affected. Extensive evidence had been presented by petitioners to support their
respectivetheoriesastothecausehowLot109wasformed.Furthermore,petitioner
DiogenesTuazondidnotstateinhismotionforrelieffromjudgmentwhatevidence
hewillpresentwhich,ifadmitted,willprobablychangethedecisionofthetrialcourt,
asheisrequiredtodointheRulesofCourt.Hispetition,therefore,isproformaand
the only purpose to be achieved by the allowance thereof is the delay of the
dispositionofthecase.(pp.140141,records).

With respect to the denial of the petition for relief filed by petitioner
Tuazoninsofarasthedecisionofthetrialcourtwasinitiallyheldtobe
final and executory, this issue was no longer pressed by the parties
inasmuchassaidpetitionerwassubsequentlyallowedtoappealfromthe
decision itself. (See petitioners brief, p. 44). Besides, there was no
questionaboutthetimelinessoftheappealfromsaiddecisionbypetitioner
DirectorofLands.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheaforegoingconsiderations,theappealed
decisionisherebyAFFIRMEDwithcostsagainstthepetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr.,
JJ.,concur.
VOL.147.JANUARY7,1987

49
49

BrotherhoodLaborUnityMovementofthePhilippinesvs.Zamora

Decisionaffirmed.
Notes.Accretion to registered land is not automatically registered.
(Grandevs.CourtofAppeals,5SCRA524.)
Therightofriparianowneroveranaccretionduetoeffectofwater
currentisnotnecessarilyaffectedbyerectionoffishtrapsinthecreek.
(Zapatavs.DirectorofLands,6SCRA335.)
o0o
Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.