BAES V. COURT OF APPEALS

The rules on alluvion do not apply to man-made or artificial accretions nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros or artificial drainage systems. If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is effected through artificial means.

FACTS:

In 1962, the Government dug up a canal on a private estate in order to streamline the Tripa de Gallina creek (in other words, there was a mand-made change of river course). Said private estate was acquired by petitioner Baes, and was subdivided in to three lots. It was lot 2958-C which was totally occupied by the canal so the Government in exchange granted him a lot near but not contiguous to C. The old river bed was filled up by soil from Lot C. Petitioner now claims ownership over the old river bed on the basis of Article 461 which says that abandoned river beds belong to the riparian owners whose land is occupied by the new course of water.

ISSUE: Whether or not Article 461 applies

RULING: YES!

If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is effected through artificial means. The loss to the petitioners of the land covered by the canal was the result of a deliberate act on the part of the government when it sought to improve the flow of the Tripa de Gallina creek. It was therefore obligated to compensate the Baeses for their loss.

We find, however, that the petitioners have already been so compensated. Felix Baes was given Lot 3271-A in exchange for the affected Lot 2958-B through the Deed of Exchange of Real Property dated June 20, 1970. This was a fair exchange because the two lots were of the same area and value and the agreement was freely entered into by the parties.