AGUSTIN V. IAC

FACTS:

Private respondents, Maria Melad and Pablo Binuyag are among those who are occupying the western bank of the Cagayan River while on the eastern bank is owned by petitioner Eulogio Agustin. From 1919 to 1968, the Cagayan river has eroded the lands on the eastern bank including Agustin’s Lot depositing alluvium on the land possessed by Pablo Binuyag. In 1968, after a typhoon which caused a big flood, the Cagayan River changed its course and returned it to its 1919 bed and it cut through the lands of respondents whose lands were transferred on the eastern side. To cultivate the lands they had to cross the river. When they were cultivating said lands, (they were planting corn) Agustin accompanied by the mayor and some policemen claimed the land and drove them away. So Melad and Binuyag filed separate complaints for recovery of their lots and its accretions. The Trial Court held ordered Agustin et. al to vacate the lands and return them to respondents. On appeal, the IAC affirmed in toto the judgment thus the case at bar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents own the accretion and such ownership is not affected by the sudden and abrupt change in the course of the Cagayan River when it reverted to its old bed

HELD: YES

Art. 457 states that the owner of the lands adjoining river banks own the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the currents of the waters. Accretion benefits a riparian owner provided that these elements are present: 1) deposit be gradual and imperceptible 2) it resulted from the effects of the current of the water and 3) the land is adjacent to the river bank. When the River moved from 1919 to 1968, there was alluvium deposited and it was gradual and imperceptible.

Accretion benefits the riparian owner because these lands 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 should in some way be compensated by the right of accretion. Also, respondent’s ownership over said lots was not removed when due to the sudden and abrupt change in the course of the river; their accretions were transferred to the other side. Art. 459 states when the current of a river x x x segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of segregated portion retains ownership provided he removes the same w/in 2 years. And Art. 463 states 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 ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current.