Ignacio Grande et al.

vs Court of Appeals
Gr. No. L-17652 June 30, 1962
Facts:

Ignacio, Eulogia, Alfonso, Eulalia, and Sofia Grande inherited a parcel of land from their parents
wherein its northeastern boundary was the Cagayan River.
Through the actions of the river an accretion of around 1.9 hectares formed through alluvial
deposit.
Domingo and Esteban Calalung has then possessed said accretion since 1933, while Ignacio et
al. entered the land with a claim of ownership in 1948
In 1958 Ignacio et al. filed a petition to quiet title of the said portion of land claiming that they
have been in open, peaceful, notorious, and continuous possession of the land and their
predecessors-in-interest since prior 1933 when Domingo and Esteban claimed to have
possessed the land
The trial court ruled in favor of Ignacio et al. based on their title to the land wherein the
accretion was attached to and saying that lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by
another through prescription
The court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial court based on the two witnesses
produced by Domingo and Esteban and the Tax Declarations they have presented and saying
that the latter has indeed acquired through prescription the said land formed by alluvium

Issue:
Who the land formed through accretion by alluvium?
Held:
Domingo and Esteban Calalung has acquired the land through prescription. Although the provisions of
the Civil Code provides that accretion formed by alluvium is part of the land of the riparian owner whose
land is situated adjacent to the river bank and thus has a claim of ownership thereof, the Land
Registration and Cadastral acts provide that imprescriptibility of a land is only gained when a Torrens
Title has been issued covering the said land, Registration under the Land Registration and Cadastral Acts
does not vest or give title to the land, but merely confirms and thereafter protects the title already
possessed by the owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of third parties. The petitioners,
Ignacio et al, never sought for the registration of the land formed by alluvium, thus said land has not
acquired the shield from acquisitive prescription. Land formed by alluvium must is owned by the riparian
owner whose land is adjacent to the river bank where the accretion has formed but must register the
accretion separately to acquire a Torrens Title over the same.

Eulogio Agustin et al. vs IAC et al.

G.R. No. L-66075-76
Facts:

The Cagayan River deposited land little by little to the lands of Maria Melad, Timoteo Melad,
Pablo Binayug & Geronima Ubina, respondents herein, through accretion from 1919 to 1968
wherein its bank moved towards the east
A flood then restored the Cagayan River to its old bank separating the accretion that attached to
the lands of the respondents
Respondents continued to cultivate said land that was separated by crossing the river
While respondents were cultivating their land in April 1969, Eulogio Agustin, Heirs of
Baldomero Langcay, Arturo Balisi and Juan Langcay, petitioners herein, came along with the
authorities and forced the respondents out of the lands claiming that the land now belongs to
them due to the Cagayan River returning to its old bed
Respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners for the recovery of the land
The trial court and the appellate court ruled in favor of the respondents, which led to the this
Petition for review of the petitioners herein

Issue:
Who does the land belong to?
Held:
The land remains to be the property of the respondents. Art. 457 of the Civil Code provides that the
owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the
effects of the current of the waters. The accretion in this case was formed by alluvium which has the
following requisites: (1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it resulted from the
effects of the current of the water; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the
bank of a river. All of which are present in the case as the accretion gradually grew from 1919 to 1968 by
the action of the Cagayan River and the owners are all riparian land owners. In this case however a flood
occurred which returned the Cagayan River to its old bed which led to avulsion, the sudden loss or
addition to land, which results from the action of water, of the lands that were added to the property of
the respondents through alluvium. Art. 459 of the civil code provides that whenever the current of a
river, creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to
another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership
of it, provided that he removes the same within two years; and is further supplemented by Art. 463 of
the Civil Code which provides that whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a
piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a
portion of land is separated from the estate by the current. Thus, the property shall remain to be that of
the respondents.

Efren Tandog et al. vs Renato Macapagal et al.

G.R. No. 144208
Facts:

Petitioners herein claim that the land consisting of 147,991 square meters belongs to them as
they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession of the land since time immemorial. They trace their rights to Casimiro
Policarpio, unmarried, who died in 1945. He was survived by his nephews and nieces, now
deceased, except Maria Bautista Catanyag. She and Casimiros grandnieces and grandnephews
(herein petitioners) have continued possessing and cultivating the land.
Upon application of for the registration of said land by the petitioners they discovered that
portions of the land were possessed by spouses Alfonso and Marina Calderon and Renato
Macapagal
Petitioners contend that the respondents only acquired the possession of the lands through
falsified documents
Spouses Calderon answered saying that Alfonso validly bought the land in 1958 and since then
they have been in open, continuous, actual and peaceful possession of the same
Renato answered by saying that he acquired a free patent for the said property and through the
free patent gained an Original Certificate of Title wherein he subsequently sold the land to the
government
Petitioners submitted their complaint and attached therein the alleged falsified documents of
the respondents as exhibits
Renato and petitioners reached a compromised agreement
Spouses filed for a demurrer of evidence against petitioners claiming that the evidence
submitted did not constitute as a cloud to their title

Issue:
Whether or not there is a cloud on the title of the petitioners herein over the said property
Held:
Art. 476 provides that Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by
reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or
effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action
may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein. While petitioners alleged that respondents claim of adverse possession is a cloud on their
interest in the land, however, such allegation has not been proved. The alleged falsified documents
relied upon by respondents to justify their possession were merely marked as exhibits but were never
formally offered in evidence by petitioners. Documents which may have been marked as exhibits during
the hearing, but which were not formally offered in evidence, cannot be considered as evidence, nor can
they be given any evidentiary value.