42.Vda. de Nazareno vs. CA (Accretion)

ACCRETION Vda. De Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals, Salasalan, Rabaya, Labis GR No. 98045 June 26, 1996 FACTS:  Antonio Nazareno is an owner of a titled property situated beside an accretion area along the banks of Cagayan River. Jose Salasalan & Leo Rabaya leased parcels of land from Nazareno. When Salsalan & Rabaya stopped paying rentals, Nazareno filed an ejectment suit. The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of Nazareno; the RTC affirmed the decision. Thus, Nazareno filed an application with the Bureau of Lands to perfect his title over the accretion area being claimed by him. ISSUE: Whether or not the subject land is a public land?

ARGUMENTS:







VDA. DE NAZARENO The subject land is a private land being an accretion to Antonio Nazareno’s titled property.  Art. 457 of the Civil Civil Code which provides that “To the owners of lands adjoining the banks ban ks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters”. The accumulation was gradual and imperceptible, resulting from the action of the waters or current of the Balacanas Creek and Cagayan River.





SALASALAN AND RABAYA They contend the public character of the subject land. Mere application of the Miscellaneous Sales Patent by Nazareno is an admission that the land being applied is a public land.

RULING: The Court ruled that the subject land is part of the public domain since the accretion was man-made or artificial. Under  Article 457 of the Civil Civil Code: “To 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.”

But the Court provides p rovides the following requisites of accretion (Rules of Alluvion): 1. That the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; 2. That it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and 3. That the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers (or sea coast). In Republic v. CA, “the requirement that the deposit should be due to the effect of the current of the river is indispensable”. In Hilario v. City of Manila, “the word “current” indicates the participation of the body of water in the ebb and flow of waters due to high and a nd low tide”.

Here, the subject land was the direct result of the dumping of sawdust by the Sun Valley Lumber Co. consequent to its sawmill operations.