G.R. No. L-12958. May 30, 1960
Facts
Petitioner filed an application for registration of a parcel of land. The land subject to registration adjoins the land owned by the petitioner which he obtained by virtue of free patent. Petitioner alleged that he owned the parcel of land by right of accretion pursuant to Art 457 of the Civil Code which provides that “[t]o the owner of the lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.” Moreover, petitioner contended that Manila Bay is not a sea which makes Articles 1,4, and 5 of the Law of Waters inapplicable. Also, even if Manila Bay is considered as sea, the trial court should have declared the same no longer necessary for any public use or purpose. Hence, petitioner contended that the parcel, having been formed by gradual deposit by action of the Manila Bay which is not a sea, belongs to him.
On the contrary, the Director of Lands opposed the application contending that the petitioner has no sufficient title thereto and that the land is a foreshore land covered by ebb and flow of the tide. Hence, the land forms part of the public domain and cannot be the subject matter of an application for registration.
Issue
- Whether or not the land belongs to the petitioner by right of accretion which therefore entitles petitioner to such land.
- Whether or not, even if the land forms part of the public domain, the lower court erred in not declaring it as no longer necessary for public use.
- Whether or not the petitioner acquired the land through acquisitive prescription.
Held
First Issue
No. Article 457 of the Civil Code is inapplicable because it refers to accretion or deposits on the banks of rivers. In this case, accretion was caused by action of the Manila Bay which is considered as a sea.
A bay is considered as part of the sea, being a mere indentation of the same. In several cases decided by the Supreme Court which applied the Law on Waters, they ruled that accretion formed by the actions of the Manila Bay was considered as accretion formed by the sea (Ker & Co. vs. Cauden and Francisco vs. Government of Philippine Islands).
Hence, the petitioner has not acquired the subject land through the right of accretion.
Second Issue
No. Under Article 4 of the Law of Waters, there is a need for a formal declaration on the part of the government, through the Executive or the Legislative, that the lands formed by accretion are no longer necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for the coastguard service. This is because the Courts are not called upon to determine whether any public land are to be used for the purposes specified in Article 4 of the Law of Waters.
In this case, there is no formal declaration by the Government that the land in question is no longer needed for public purpose.
Hence, the lower court did not err in not declaring the same to be the property of
the applicant-appellant.
Third Issue
No. Lands formed by accretion cannot be acquired through prescription if such land is part of the public domain and is intended for public uses and for the benefit of those who live nearby (Insular Government vs. Aldecoa & Co.).
In this case, the land formed by accretion is part of the public domain. Moreover, there is no formal declaration providing that the land is no longer intended for public use.
Therefore, the petitioner has not acquired the land through acquisitive prescription.
Ruling
Therefore, the land cannot be registered since the petitioner neither acquired it through the right of accretion nor through acquisitive prescription.