Republic vs. CA

of 10
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  10/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 1/10 514SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Republic vs. Court of Appeals No. L-61647. October 12, 1984. * REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIRECTOR OFLANDS), petitioner, vs.  THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,BENJAMIN TANCINCO, AZUCENA TANCINCO REYES,MARINA TANCINCO IMPERIAL and MARIO C.TANCINCO, respondents.  Appeals; Exceptions to binding effect of lower court factual findings.—  The rule that the findings of fact of the trial court andthe Court of Appeals are binding upon this Court admits of certain exceptions. Thus in Carolina Industries Inc. v. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc.  (97 SCRA 734) we held that this Court retains thepower to review and rectify the findings of fact of said courtswhen (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely onspeculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inferencemade is manifestly mistaken, absurd, and impossible; (3) wherethere is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is basedon a misapprehension of facts; and (5) when the court, in makingits findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same arecontrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee.  Property; Land Registration; Requisites for land accretion totake place for benefit of riparian owner.—  The above-quoted articlerequires the concurrence of three requisites before an accretioncovered by this particular provision is said to have taken place.They are (1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; (2)that it be made through the effects of the current of the water;and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent tothe banks of rivers. Same; Same; For accretion or alluvion to form part of registered land of riparian owner, the gradual alluvial depositsmust be due to the effects of the river’s current. Deposits made byhuman intervention are excluded.—  The requirement that thedeposit should be due to the effect of the current of the river isindispensable. This excludes from Art. 457 of the New Civil Codeall deposits caused by human intervention. Alluvion must be theexclusive work of nature. In the instant case, there is no evidence  10/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 2/10 whatsoever to prove that the addition to the said property wasmade gradually through the effects of the current of theMeycauayan and Bocaue rivers. We agree with the  _______________  *  FIRST DIVISION. 515  VOL. 132, OCTOBER 12, 1984515 Republic vs. Court of Appeals observation of the Solicitor General that it is preposterous tobelieve that almost four (4) hectares of land came into beingbecause of the effects of the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers. Thelone witness of the private respondents who happens to be theiroverseer and whose husband was first cousin of their fathernoticed the four hectare accretion to the twelve hectare fishpondonly in 1939. The respondents claim that at this point in time,accretion had already taken place. If so, their witness wasincompetent to testify to a gradual and imperceptible increase totheir land in the years before 1939. Same; Same; Evidence; In the case at bar there is evidencethat alleged alluvial deposits were man-made.  —However, thewitness testified that in that year , she observed  an increase in thearea of the srcinal fishpond which is now the land in question. If she was telling the truth, the accretion was sudden. However,there is evidence that the alleged alluvial deposits were artificialand man-made and not the exclusive result of the current of theMeycauayan and Bocaue rivers. The alleged alluvial depositscame into being not because of the sole effect of the current of therivers but as a result of the transfer of the dike towards the riverand encroaching upon it. The land sought to be registered is noteven dry land cast imperceptibly and gradually by the river’scurrent on the fishpond adjoining it. It is under two meters of water. The private respondents’ own evidence shows that thewater in the fishpond is two meters deep on the side of the pilapilfacing the fishpond and only one meter deep on the side of thepilapil facing the river. Same; Same; A riparian owner cannot register accretions tohis land arising from special works or man-made dikesconstructed for reclamation purposes.  —The reason behind the lawgiving the riparian owner the right to any land or alluvion  10/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 3/10 deposited by a river is to compensate him for the danger of lossthat he suffers because of the location of his land. If estatesbordering on rivers are exposed to floods and other evils producedby the destructive force of the waters and if by virtue of lawfulprovisions, said estates are subject to incumbrances and variouskinds of easements, it is proper that the risk or danger which mayprejudice the owners thereof should be compensated by the rightof accretion. (Cortes v. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567). Hence, theriparian owner does not acquire the additions to his land causedby special works expressly intended or designed to bring aboutaccretion. When the private respondents transferred their dikestowards the river bed, the dikes were meant for reclamationpurposes and not to protect their property from the destructiveforce of the waters of the river. 516 516SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Republic vs. Court of Appeals Same; Same; Same; Public Lands; Beds of rivers are non-registerable portions of the public domain.—  The lower courtcannot validly order the registration of Lots 1 & 2 in the names of the private respondents. These lots were portions of the bed of theMeycauayan river and are therefore classified as property of thepublic domain under Article 420 paragraph 1 and Article 502,paragraph 1 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. They are notopen to registration under the Land Registration Act. Theadjudication of the lands in question as private property in thenames of the private respondents is null and void. PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Courtof Appeals.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.  The Solicitor General  for petitioner.  Martin B. Laurea  for respondents.GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court) affirming the decision of the Court of FirstInstance of Bulacan, Fifth Judicial District, Branch VIII,which found that Lots 1 and 2 of Plan Psu-131892 areaccretion to the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 89709 and ordered their registration in the namesof the private respondents.  10/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 4/10 Respondents Benjamin Tancinco, Azucena TancincoReyes, Marina (should be “Maria”) Tancinco Imperial andMario C. Tancinco are registered owners of a parcel of landcovered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-89709situated at Barrio Ubihan, Meycauayan, Bulacan borderingon the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers.On June 24, 1973, the private respondents filed anapplication for the registration of three lots adjacent totheir fishpond property and particularly described asfollows: “Lot 1-Psu-131892 (Maria C. Tancinco)“A parcel of land (lot 1 as shown on plan Psu-131892), situated 517  VOL. 132, OCTOBER 12, 1984517 Republic vs. Court of Appeals in the Barrio of Ubihan, Municipality of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan. Bounded on the NE., along line 1-2, by Lot 3 of plan Psu-131892; on the SE., along lines 2-3-4, by Meycauayan River; onthe S.W., along lines 4-5-6-7-8-9, by Bocaue River; on the NE.,along line 9-10, by property of Joaquina Santiago; on the E., NE.,and NW., along lines 10-11-12-1, by property of Mariano Tancinco(Lot 2, Psu-111877). x x x containing an area of THIRTY THREETHOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN (33,937)SQUARE METERS. x x x”“Lot 2-Psu-131892 (Maria C. Tancinco)“A parcel of land (Lot 2 as shown on plan Psu-131892), situatedin the Barrio of Ubihan, Municipality of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan. Bounded on the E., along line 1-2, by property of RafaelSingson; on the S., along line 2-3, by Meycauayan River; on theSW., along line 3-4, by Lot 3 of plan Psu-131892; and on the N.,along line 4-1, by property of Mariano Tancinco (Lot 1, Psu-111877). x x x containing an area of FIVE THOUSAND FOURHUNDRED FIFTY THREE (5,453) SQUARE METERS. x x x”“Lot 3-Psu-131892 (Maria C. Tancinco)“A parcel of land (Lot 3 as shown on plan Psu-131892), situatedin the Barrio of Ubihan, Municipality of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan. Bounded on the NE., along line 1-2, by property of Mariano Tancinco (Lot 1, Psu-111877); and along line 2-3, by Lot

grade 3 hw 5

Oct 8, 2019


Oct 8, 2019
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!