Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs IAC and Heirs of Sinforoso Pascual

FACTS:
Sinforoso Pascual filed an application to register and confirm his title to
a parcel of land which have an area of 146, 611 sq. m. and claimed that such
is an accretion to his property. The Director of Lands, filed an opposition
thereto stating that neither Pascual nor his predecessors-in-interest
possessed sufficient title to the subject property, the same being a portion of
the public domain and, therefore, it belongs to the Republic of the
Philippines. Navarro thereupon filed an opposition to Pascuals application
claiming that the land sought to be registered has always been part of the
Republic of the Philippines and that he was a lessee and in possession of a
part of the subject property by virtue of a fishpond permit issued by the
Bureau of Fisheries and confirmed by the Office of the President; and that he
had already converted the area covered by the lease into a fishpond. Pascual
filed an ejectment against Navarro, one Marcelo Lopez and their privies.
However, the case was decided against Sinforoso Pascual. Consequently
respondent appealed to RTC (CFI) but transferred the same to Court a quo,
because of the similarities in parties and subject property. The Court a quo
rendered the decision against the Emiliano Navarro, however the CA
reversed the decision of the lower court and decided in favor of the
respondent.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the land sought to be registered is accretion or foreshore land?
HELD:
1. The Court held that the disputed property was a foreshore land.
Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457, requires
the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the accumulation
of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the
result of the action of the waters of the river; and (3) that the land
where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river.
Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited, while alluvium is
the soil deposited on the estate fronting the river bank; the owner of
such estate is called the riparian owner. The combined and interactive
effect of the planting of palapat and bakawan trees, the withdrawal of
the waters of Manila Bay eventually resulting in the drying up of its
former foreshore, and the regular torrential action of the waters of
Manila Bay, is the formation of the disputed land on the northern
boundary of private respondents' own tract of land. Furthermore,
Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 provides as
follows:
"Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits
caused by the action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When
they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea and are not
necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of
special industries, or for the coast-guard service, the Government shall
declare them to be the property of the owners of the estates adjacent
thereto and as increment thereof."
In the light of the aforecited vintage but still valid law,
unequivocal is the public nature of the disputed land in this
controversy, the same being an accretion on a sea bank which, for all
legal purposes, the foreshore of Manila Bay is. As part of the public
domain, the herein disputed land is intended for public uses, and "so
long as the land in litigation belongs to the national domain and is
reserved for public uses, it is not capable of being appropriated by any
private person, except through express authorization granted in due
form by a competent authority. Only the executive and possibly the
legislative departments have the right and the power to make the
declaration that the lands so gained by action of the sea is no longer
necessary for purposes of public utility or for the cause of
establishment of special industries or for coast guard services.

S-ar putea să vă placă și