LEONIDA CUREG, ROMEO, PEPITO, HERNANDO, MANUEL, ANTONIO AND ELPIDIO (ALL SURNAMED CARNIYAN), PETITIONERS, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, (4TH CIVIL CASES DIVISION), DOMINGO A…

This petition under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, seeks the reversal of the decision of the Intermediate
Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) dated October 15, 1985 in AC-G.R. CV No.
03852 entitled “Domingo Apostol, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Leonida
Cureg, et al., Defendants-Appellants”, which
affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Isabela,
Branch XXII declaring private respondent Domingo Apostol
the absolute owner of a parcel of land, situated in Barangay
Casibarag-Cajel, Cabagan, Isabela, more particularly
described as follows:

“x x x, containing an area of 5.5000 hectares, and bounded, on
the north, by Cagayan River; on the east, by Domingo Guingab; on the south, by Antonio Carnivan; and on the west, by Sabina Mola, with an assessed value of P3,520.” (par. 9 of
complaint, p. 4, Record; emphasis ours)

On November 5, 1982, private respondents Domingo Apostol, Soledad Gerardo, Rosa Gerardo, Nieves Gerardo, Flordeliza Gerardo and Lilia Maquinad,
filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages with preliminary injunction against herein
petitioners Leonida, Romeo, Pepito,
Hernando, Manuel, Antonio and Elpidio, all surnamed Carniyan with the Regional Trial Court of Isabela and docketed as Civil Case No. Br. 111-373.  A temporary restraining order was issued by
the trial court on November 12, 1982.

The complaint alleged that private respondents, except Domingo Apostol, are the legal and/or the forced heirs of the late
Domingo Gerardo, who died in February 1944, the latter being the only issue of the late Francisco
Gerardo, who died before the outbreak of the second world war that since time
immemorial and/or before July 26, 1894, the late Francisco Gerardo, together
with his predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, open, peaceful and
continuous possession, under a bona fide claim of ownership and
adverse to all other claimants, of a parcel of land (referred to as their
“motherland”), situated in Casibarag-Cajel,
Cabagan, Isabela, more
particularly described as follows:

“x x x containing an area of 2.5000 hectares, more or less, and
bounded on the North, by Cagayan River;
on the East, by Domingo Guingab (formerly Rosa Cureg); on the south by Antonio Carniyan; and on the West by Sabina Mola, x x x.”
(p. 2, Record)

that said land
was declared for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 08-3023 in the
name of Francisco Gerardo, which cancels Tax Declaration No. C-9669, also in the name of Francisco Gerardo; that upon the death of Francisco Gerardo,
the ownership and possession of the “motherland” was succeeded by his only
issue, Domingo Gerardo who, together with three (3) legal or forced heirs,
namely Soledad Gerardo, one of private respondents herein, Primo Gerardo and Salud Gerardo, both deceased, have also been in actual,
open, peaceful and continuous possession of the same; that Primo Gerardo is
survived by herein respondents, Rosa, Nieves and Flordeliza,
all surnamed Gerardo and Salud Gerardo is survived by
respondent Lilia Maquinad; that in 1979, respondents
Soledad Gerardo, Rosa Gerardo, Nieves Gerardo, Flordeliza Gerardo and Lilia Maquinad
verbally sold the “motherland” to co-respondent Domingo Apostol; that on September 10, 1982, the verbal sale and
conveyance was reduced into writing by the vendors who executed an
“Extra-Judicial Partition with Voluntary Reconveyance
(Exhibit “Q”, p. 206, Rollo); that
about the time of the execution
of the Extra-Judicial Partition, their “motherland” already
showed/manifested signs of accretion of about three (3) hectares on the north
caused by the northward movement of the Cagayan
River; that Domingo Apostol declared the motherland
and its accretion for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 08-13281 on
September 15, 1982.

The complaint also stated that sometime about the last week of
September and/or the first week of October 1982, when private respondents were
about to cultivate their “motherland” together with its accretion,
they were prevented and threatened by defendants (petitioners herein) from
continuing to do so.  Named defendants in
said case are herein petitioners Leonida Cureg and Romeo, Pepito,
Hernando, Manuel, Antonio and Elpidio, all surnamed
Carniyan, surviving spouse and children,
respectively, of Antonio Carniyan.  Further, the complaint stated that Antonio Carniyan was the owner of a piece of land situated in Casibarag-Cajel, Cabagan, Isabela and more particularly described as follows:

“x x x containing an area of 2,790 sq. m.,
more or less bounded on the north
by Domingo Gerardo; on the East, by Domingo Guingab;
on the south, by Pelagio Camayo;
and on the west by Marcos Cureg, declared for
taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 13131,
with an assessed value of P70.00.” (p. 5, Record)

that deceased
Antonio Carniyan revised on November 28, 1968 his Tax Declaration No. 13131
dated July 24, 1961 to
conform with the correct area and boundaries of his Original Certificate of
Title No. P-19093 issued on November
25, 1968; that the area under the new Tax Declaration No. 15663 was
increased from 2,790 square meters to 4,584 square meters and the boundary on
the north became Cagayan
River, purposely eliminating
completely the original boundary on the north which is Domingo Gerardo.

Petitioners’ answer alleged that the “motherland” clained by private respondents is non-existent; that
Antonio Carniyan, petitioners’
predecessor-in-interest, was the owner of a piece of land bounded on the north by Cagayan River
and not by the land of Francisco Gerardo as claimed by private respondents;
that the “subject land” is an accretion to their registered land and
that petitioners have been in possession and cultivation of the
“accretion” for many years now.

The application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was denied on July 28,
1983 (pp. 244-250, Rollo) on the ground that the defendants were in actual possession of the land
in litigation prior to September 1982.

In a decision rendered on
July 6, 1984, the trial court held that respondent Domingo Apostol,
thru his predecessors-in-interest had already acquired
an imperfect title to the subject land and accordingly, rendered judgment:  1. declaring Domingo Apostol
its absolute owner; 2. ordering the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction against herein petitioners; 3. ordering that the writ be made
permanent; and 4. ordering herein petitioners to pay private respondents a
reasonable attorney’s fee of P5,000.00, litigation expenses of P1,500.00 and
costs (pp. 143-145, Rollo).

On July 17,
1984, petitioners
appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which affirmed the decision
of the trial court on October 15, 1985. 
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied on January
8, 1986.  Hence, this petition for review on the
following assigned errors:

“A. It erred in ruling the subject land or
“accretion” (which is bounded on the north by the Cagayan
River) belongs to the private respondents and not to the petitioners when
the petitioners’ Original Certificate of Title No. 19093 states clearly that
the petitioners’ land is bounded on its north by the Cagayan River.

“B. It erred in construing the tax declarations against the
interest of the herein petitioners who are only the heirs of the late Antonio Carniyan since the late Francisco (supposed predecessor of
the respondents) could not have executed the recently acquired tax declarations
(Exhibits “A” to “A-2”) as he died long before World War II
and since the late Antonio Carniyan could no longer
stand up to explain his side.

“C. Contrary to the evidence and the finding of the Regional Trial
Court, it wrongly ruled that petitioners have never been in possession of the
land (p. 7 of Annex “A”, ibid.).

“D. It erred in awarding the accretion of
3.5 hectares to the private respondents who incredibly claimed that the
accretion occurred only in 1982 and is a “gift from the Lord.” (pp.
24-25, Rollo)

This petition is
impressed with merit.

The object of the
controversy in this case is the alleged “motherland” of private
respondents together with the accretion of about 3.5 hectares, the totality of
which is referred to in this decision as the “subject land.”

In this case, petitioners
claimed to be riparian owners who are entitled to the “subject land”
which is an accretion to the registered land while private
respondents claimed to be entitled to the 3.5 hectares accretion attached to
their “motherland.”

It should be noted that the herein private respondents’ claim of ownership of their
alleged two and a half (2 & 1/2) hectare “motherland” is anchored
mainly on four (4) tax declarations (Exhibits “A”, “A-1″,
“A-2” and “B”, pp.
191, 192, 193, 194, Rollo).  This
Court has repeatedly held that the declaration of ownership for purposes of
assessment on the payment of the tax is
not sufficient evidence to prove ownership. 
(Evangelista v. Tabayuyong,
7 Phil. 607; Elumbaring v. Elumbaring,
12 Phil. 384; cited in Camo v. Riosa
Bayco; 29 Phil.
437, 444).  For their part,
petitioners relied on the indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of their
Original Certificate of Title No. P-19093, dated November
25, 1968 (Exhibit
“3”, p. 189, Rollo) issued in the name of Antonio Carniyan (petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest) pursuant to
Free Patent No. 399431 dated May 21, 1968, clearly showing that the boundary of
petitioners’ land on the north is Cagayan River and not the “motherland” claimed
by respondents.  The said registered land
was bought by the late Antonio Carniyan from his
father-in-law, Marcos Cureg, on October
5, 1956, as
evidenced by an Absolute Deed of Sale (Exhibit “8”, p. 195, Rollo) which states that the land is bounded on the
north by Cagayan River.

In the case of Ferrer-Lopez      v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 50420, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 393, 401-402,
We ruled that as against an array of proofs consisting of tax declarations
and/or tax receipts which are not conclusive evidence of ownership nor proof of
the area covered therein, an original
certificate of title indicates true and legal ownership by the registered
owners over the disputed premises.  Petitioners’ OCT No.
P-19093 should be accorded greater weight
as against the tax declarations (Exhibit “A”, dated 1979;
Exhibit “A-1” undated and Exhibit “A-2” dated 1967, pp.
191, 192, 193, Rollo) offered by private
respondents in support of their claim, which declarations are all in the name
of private respondents’
predecessor-in-interest, Francisco Gerardo, and appear to have been
subscribed by him after the last war, when it was established during the trial
that Francisco Gerardo died long before the outbreak of the last war.

Anent Tax Declaration No.
13131, in the name of Antonio Carniyan (Exhibit
“C”, p. 203, Rollo), which the appellate court considered as an
admission by him that his land is bounded on the north by the land of Domingo
Gerardo and that he (Carniyan) is now estopped from claiming otherwise, We hold that said tax
declaration, being of an earlier date cannot defeat an original certificate of
title which is of a later date. 
Since petitioner’s original certificate of title clearly stated that
subject land is bounded on the north by the Cagayan
River, private respondents’ claim over their “motherland,” allegedly
existing between petitioners’ land and the Cagayan
River, is deemed barred and nullified with the issuance of the original
certificate of title.

It   is an elemental
rule that a decree of registration bars all claims and rights
which arose or may have existed prior to the decree of registration (Ferrer-Lopez v. CA, supra., p. 404).  By the issuance of the decree, the land is
bound and title thereto quieted,
subject only to exceptions stated in Section 39, Act 496 (now Sec. 44 of PD No.
1529).  Moreover, the tax declarations of
the late Antonio Carniyan subsequent to the issuance
of OCT P-19093 (Exhibit “D”, p. 204, Rollo)
already states that its northern boundary is Cagayan River.  In effect, he has repudiated any previous
acknowledgment by him, granting that he caused the accomplishment of the tax
declarations in his name before the issuance of OCT No. P-19093,
of the existence of Francisco Gerardo’s land.

Finally, the trial court
concluded that petitioners have never been in possession of the “subject
land” but the evidence on record proves otherwise.  First, the trial court on page 11 of its
Decision (p. 121, Rollo), stated the reason
for denying private respondents’ petition for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction, that is, “x x x
the defendants (petitioners herein) were in actual possession of the land in
litigation prior to September, 1982″ (p. 121, Rollo).  Second, witness for private respondents,
Esteban Guingab, boundary owner on the east of the
land in question and whose own land is bounded on the north of Cagayan River, on cross-examination, revealed that when his
property was only more than one (1) hectare in 1958, (now more than 4 hectares)
his boundary on the west is the land of Antonio Carniyan
(T.S.N., 5 May 1983, pp. 19-20).  Third,
witness Rogelio C. Albano, a geodetic engineer, on
direct examination stated that in 1974, the late Antonio Carniyan
requested him to survey the land covered by his title and the accretion
attached to it, but he did not pursue the same because he learned from the
Office of the Director of the Bureau of Lands that the same accretion is the
subject of an application for homestead patent of one Democrata
Aguila, (T.S.N., May 18, 1984, pp. 12-13) contrary to
the statement of the trial court and the appellate court that Albano “made three attempts to survey the land but he
did not continue to survey because persons other than defendants were in
possession of the land,” which statement appears only to be a conclusion
(p. 7, Rollo). 
Fourth, We note Exhibit “20” (p. 273, Rollo)
for petitioners which is an order by the Director of Lands dated August 14,
1980 in connection with the Homestead Application of Democrata
Aguila of an accretion situated in Catabayungan, Cabagan, Isabela.  Aguila’s application was disapproved because in an
investigation conducted by the Bureau of Lands of the area applied for which is
an accretion, the same was found to be occupied and cultivated by, among
others, Antonio Carniyan, who claimed it as an
accretion to his land.  It is worthy to
note that none of the private respondents nor their
predecessors-in-interest appeared as one of those found occupying and
cultivating said accretion.

On the other hand, the allegation of private respondents that
they were in possession of the “motherland” through their
predecessors-in-interest had not been proved by substantial evidence.  The assailed decision of the respondent
court, which affirmed the decision of the trial court, stated that since the
“motherland” exists, it is also presumed that private respondents were in possession of the “subject land” through
their predecessors-in-interest since prior to July 26, 1894.  The trial court relied on the testimony of
Soledad Gerardo, one of the private respondents in this case, an interested and
biased witness, regarding their possession of the “motherland.” From her testimony on pedigree, the trial court presumed that the source of the
property, the late Francisco Gerardo, was in possession of the same since prior
to July 26, 1894
(pp. 137-140, Rollo).

The foregoing
considerations indubitably show that the alleged “motherland” claimed
by private respondents is non-existent. 
The “subject land” is an alluvial deposit left by the
northward movement of the Cagayan River and pursuant to Article 457 of the New Civil
Code:

“To the owners of land adjoining the
banks of river belong the accretion which they
gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.”

However, it should be noted that the area covered by OCT No. P-19093 is only four thousand five
hundred eighty four (4,584) square meters. 
The accretion attached to said land is approximately five and a half (5.5) hectares.  The increase in the area of petitioners’
land, being an accretion left by the change of course or the northward movement
of the Cagayan River does not automatically become registered
land just because the lot which receives such accretion is covered by a Torrens title. 
(See Grande v. Court of Appeals, L-17652, June 30,
1962).  As such, it must also be placed under the
operation of the Torrens System.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED.  The decision appealed from is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING Civil Case No. Br. III-373 for quieting of title and damages.

Costs against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Grino-Aquino.
JJ., concur.