EULOGIO AGUSTIN, HEIRS OF BALDOMERO LANGCAY, ARTURO BALISI & JUAN LANGCAY, PETITIONERS, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MARIA MELAD, TIMOTEO MELAD PABLO BINAYUG & GERONIMA UBI…

The Cagayan river
separates the towns of Solana on the west and Tuguegarao
on the east in the province of Cagayan.  According to the unrebutted
testimony of Romeo Rigor, Geodetic Engineer of the Bureau of Lands, in 1919 the
lands east of the river were covered by the Tuguegarao
Cadastre.  In 1925, Original Certificate
of Title No. 5472 was issued for land east of the Cagayan River
owned by defendant-petitioner Eulogio Agustin (Exh. 2-Agustin).

As the years went by, the Cagayan River
moved gradually eastward, depositing silt on the western bank.  The
shifting of the river and the siltation continued until
1968.

In 1950, all lands west of the river were included in the Solana
Cadastre.  Among those occupying lands
covered by the Solana Cadastre were plaintiffs-private respondents, namely,
Pablo Binayug, who has been in possession of Lots
3349, 7876, 7877, 7878, 7879, 7875, 7881, 7882, 7883, 7884, 7885, 7891 and
7892, and Maria Melad, who owns Lot 3351 (Exh.
3-Binayug; Exh. B–Melad).  Pablo
Binayug began his possession in 1947.  An area of eight (8) hectares was planted to tobacco and corn while 12 hectares
were overgrown with talahib (Exh. C-1 Binayug.)
Binayug’s Homestead Application No. W-79055 over this land was
approved in 1959 (Exh. B-Binayug).  Binayug’s possession was recognized in the decision in
Civil Case No. 101 (Exh. F-Binayug).  On
the other hand, as a result of Civil Case No. 343-T, Macario Melad, the
predecessor-in-interest of Maria Melad and Timoteo Melad, was issued
Original Certificate of Title No. P?5026 for Lot 3351 of Cad. 293
on June 1, 1956.

Through the years, the Cagayan River
eroded lands of the Tuguegarao Cadastre on its
eastern bank among which was defendant-petitioner Eulogio
Agustin’s Lot 8457 (Exh.
E-Melad), depositing the alluvium as accretion on the
land possessed by Pablo Binayug on the western
bank.

However, in 1968, after a big flood, the Cagayan River
changed its course, returned to its 1919 bed, and, in the process, cut across
the lands of Maria Melad, Timoteo Melad, and the
spouses Pablo Binayug and Geronima
Ubina whose lands were transferred on the eastern, or Tuguegarao,
side of the river.  To cultivate those lots they had to cross the river.

In April, 1969, while the private respondents and their tenants
were planting corn on their lots located on the eastern side of the Cagayan River,
the petitioners, accompanied by the mayor and some policemen of Tuguegarao,
claimed the same lands as their own and drove away the private respondents from
the premises.

On April 21, 1970,
private respondents Maria Melad and Timoteo Melad filed a complaint
(Civil Case No. 343-T) to recover Lot No. 3351 with an area of 5 hectares and
its 6.6-hectare accretion.  On April 24, 1970, private respondent
Pablo Binayug filed a separate complaint (Civil Case
No. 344-T) to recover his lots and their
accretions.

On June 16, 1975,
the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby made:

“In Civil Case No. 343-T, commanding Eulogio
Agustin, Gregorio Tuliao, Jacinto Buquel
and Octavio Bancud, or
anybody acting as their representative[s] or agents to vacate Lot No. 3351 of
Solana Cadastre together with its accretion consisting of portions of Lots
9463, 9462 and 9461 of Tuguegarao Cadastre and for
these defendants to restore ownership in favor of Maria Melad
and Timoteo Melad who are
the only interested heirs of Macario Melad.

“In Civil Case No. 344-T, commanding defendants Justo Adduru, Andres Pastor, Teofilo Tagacay, Vicente Camilan, Nicanor Mora, Baldomero Cagurangan, Domingo Quilang, Cesar Cabalza, Elias Macababbad, Titong Macababbad, Arturo Balisi, Jose Allabun, Eulogio Agustin, Banong Aquino, Junior Cambri and Juan Langoay, or any
of their agents or representatives to vacate the Lots 3349, 7876, 7877, 7878,
7879, 7875, 7881, 7882, 7883, 7884, 7885, 1891 and 7892, together with its
accretion and to restore possession to plaintiffs
Pablo Binayug and Geronimo Ubina.  Without pronouncement as to
damages which were not properly proven and to costs.

“SO ORDERED.  (As amended by the order
dated August 15, 1975.)” (pp. 24-25, Rollo.)

Only defendant-petitioner Eulogio
Agustin appealed in Civil Case
No. 343-T, while in Civil Case No. 344-T, only defendants-petitioners Eulogio Agustin, Baldomero Cagurangan (substituted by his heir), Arturo Balisi and Juan Langcay
appealed.  But upon motion of
plaintiffs-private respondents, the trial court ordered the execution pending
appeal of the judgment in Civil Case No. 344-T against Cagurangan,
Balisi and Langcay on the
ground that their appeal was dilatory as they had not presented evidence at the
trial (Order dated August 15, 1975).

On November 29, 1983, the Intermediate
Appellate Court rendered a decision affirming in toto
the judgment of the trial court, with costs against the defendants-appellants.

In their petition for review of that decision, the petitioners
allege that the Court of Appeals erred:

1.  in declaring that the land in question had become part of private respondents’
estate as a result of accretion;

2.  in
declaring that the accretion to private respondents’ estate which used to
pertain to petitioners’ estate cannot preclude the private respondents from being the owners thereof; and

3.  in
declaring that the ownership of private respondents over the accretion is not
affected by the sudden and abrupt change in the course of the Cagayan River when it reverted to its old bed.

The petition is unmeritorious and must be denied.

The finding of the Court of Appeals that there had been accretions to the lots of the private respondents who did not
lose the ownership of such accretions even after they were separated from the
principal lots by the sudden
change of course of the river, is a finding of fact which is conclusive on this Court.  That finding is supported by Art. 457 of
the New Civil Code which provides:

“Art. 457.  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.  (366)”

Accretion benefits a riparian owner when the following requisites
are present:  (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 (Republic vs.
CA, 132 SCRA 514).

All these requisites of accretion are present in this case for, as the trial court found:

“x x x Cagayan River did move year by year from 1919 to 1968 or
for a period of 49 years.  Within this
period, the alluviun (sic) deposited on the other
side has become greater in area than the original lands of the plaintiffs in
both cases.  Still the addition in every
year is imperceptible in nature, one could not discern
it but can be measured after the lapse of a certain time.  The testimonial evidence in these cases that
said Cagayan
River moved eastward year by year
is overwhelming as against the denial of defendant Eulogio
Agustin alone.  Cesar Caronan,
one time mayor of Solana, Cagayan, said so.  Arturo
Taguian said so, Timoteo Melad said so, Francisco Ubina
said so, Geodetic Engineer Rigor impliedly said so when he testified that when
Solana Cadastre was executed in 1950 it overlapped portions of Tuguegarao Cadastre executed in 1919.  This could not have happened if that part of Tuguegarao Cadastre was not eroded by the overflow of the Cagayan River.  These testimonies cannot be destroyed by the
denials of Vicente Cauilan, Marcelo Agustin and Eulogio Agustin Alone. 
x x x.”
(p. 27, Rollo.)

The appellate court confirmed that the accretion on the western
bank of the Cagayan
River had been going on from 1919
up to 1968 or for a period of 49 years.  It was gradual and imperceptible.  Only when Lot No. 3351, with an original area
of 5 hectares described in the free patent that was issued to Macario Melad in June, 1956, was resurveyed in 1968 did it become known that 6.6 hectares had been added to it. 
Lot No. 3351, covered by a homestead patent issued in June, 1950 to
Pablo Binayug, grew from its original area of 18
hectares, by an additional 50 hectares through alluvium as the Cagayan River gradually moved to the east.  These accretions belong to the riparian
owners upon whose lands the alluvial deposits were made (Roxas
vs. Tuason, 9 Phil. 408; Director of Lands vs. Rizal, 87 Phil. 806). 
The reason for this principle is because, if lands bordering on streams
are exposed to floods and other damage due to the destructive force of the waters, and if by virtue of law
they are subject to encumbrances and various kinds of easements, it is
only just that such risks or dangers as may prejudice the
owners thereof should in some way be compensated by the right of
accretion (Cortes vs. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567).

The private respondents’ ownership of the accretion to their
lands was not lost upon the sudden and abrupt change of the course of the Cagayan River in 1968 or 1969 when it reverted to its old
1919 bed, and separated or transferred said accretions to the other side (or
eastern bank) of the river.  Articles 459
and 463 of the New Civil Code apply to this situation.

“Art.   459.  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.”

“Art. 463.  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.  (Emphasis supplied).

In the case at bar, the sudden change of
course of the Cagayan
River as a result of a strong
typhoon in 1968 caused a portion of
the lands of the private respondents to be “separated from the estate by the
current.” The private respondents have retained the ownership of the
portion that was transferred by avulsion to the other side of the river.

WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit.  The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, is hereby
affirmed.  Costs
against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Acting C.J., Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.