Viajar 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 ANOTATED VOLUME 1/10  VOL. 168, DECEMBER 12, 1988405 Viajar vs. Court of Appeals No. L-77294. December 12, 1988. *  ANGELICA VIAJAR and CELSO VIAJAR, plaintiffs-appellants, vs.  COURT OF APPEALS, LEONOR P.LADRIDO, LOURDES LADRIDO IGNACIO, EUGENIO P.LADRIDO and MANUEL P. LADRIDO, defendants-appellees,  Appeals; Courts; Judgment; Jurisdiction; Petitioners’ contention that the decision of the appellate court is void on the principle that a court of justice has no jurisdiction or power todecide the question not in issue, is not correct; Reasons; Case atbar.  —The pivotal issue in the petitioners’ appeal was whether thechange in the course of the Suague River was gradual or suddenbecause the trial court below resolved the same in its decisionthus subjecting the same to review by respondent appellate court.By simply abandoning this issue, the petitioners cannot hope thatthe affirmance of the decision wherein this issue was resolvedmakes the decision of the Court of Appeals void. In effect, thepetitioners are expounding a new procedural theory that to rendera questioned decision void, all that has to be done is to simplyabandon on appeal the pivotal issue as resolved by the lower courtand when its decision is affirmed on appeal, attack the decision of the appellate court as void on the principle that a court of justicehas no jurisdiction or power to decide the question not in issue.This is not correct. Even the authorities cited by the petitioners,more specifically the Salvante and Lazo cases, supra, do notsupport their contention. They were heard in the trial court andthey  _______________  *  FIRST DIVISION. 406  10/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANOTATED VOLUME 2/10 406SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Viajar vs. Court of Appeals cannot complain that the proceeding below was irregular andhence, invalid. The trial court found that the change in the courseof the Suague River was gradual and this finding was affirmed bythe respondent Court of Appeals. We do not find any valid reasonto disturb this finding of fact. Same; Same; Ownership; Accretion; Land Registration; Rulethat the registration under the Torrens System does not protect theriparian owner against the diminution of the area of his registeredland through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream.  —The rule that registration under the Torrens Systemdoes not protect the riparian owner against the diminution of thearea of his registered land through gradual changes in the courseof an adjoining stream is well settled. In Payatas EstateImprovement Co. vs. Tuason, 53 Phil 55, We ruled: “Thecontroversy in the present cases seems to be due to the erroneousconception that Art. 366 of the Civil Code does not apply toTorrens registered land. That article provides that ‘any accretionswhich the banks of rivers may gradually receive from the effectsof the current belong to the owners of the estates borderingthereon.’ Accretions of that character are natural incidents to landbordering on running streams and are not affected by theregistration laws. It follows that registration does not protect theriparian owner against diminution of the area of his land throughgradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream.” In C.N.Hodges vs. Garcia, 109 Phil. 133, We also ruled: “It clearlyappearing that the land in question has become part of defendant’s estate as a result of accretion, it follows that said landnow belongs to him. The fact that the accretion to his land used topertain to plaintiff’s estate, which is covered by a TorrensCertificate of Title, cannot preclude him (defendant) from beingthe owner thereof. Registration does not protect the riparianowner against the diminution of the area of his land throughgradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream. Accretionswhich the banks of rivers may gradually receive from the effect of the current become the property of the owners of the banks (Art.366 of the Old Civil Code; Art. 457 of the New). Such accretionsare natural incidents to land bordering on running streams andthe provisions of the Civil Code in that respect are not affected bythe Registration Act.” We find no valid reason to review andabandon the aforecited rulings. As the private respondents arethe owners of the premises in question, no damages arerecoverable from them.  10/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANOTATED VOLUME 3/10 PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Courtof Appeals. 407  VOL. 168, DECEMBER 12, 1988407 Viajar vs. Court of Appeals The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.  Ramon A. Gonzales  for petitioner.  Miraflores Law Offices  for respondents.MEDIALDEA, J. :This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 29, 1986, in CA-G.R.CV No. 69942 entitled, “ANGELICA VIAJAR, et. al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus LEONOR LADRIDO, et. al.,Defendants-Appellees,” affirming the decision of the Courtof First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Iloilo datedDecember 10, 1981.The antecedent facts in the instant case are as follows:The spouses Ricardo Y. Ladrido and Leonor P. Ladridowere the owners of Lot No. 7511 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan situated in barangay Cawayan, Pototan, Iloilo.This lot contained an area of 154,267 square meters andwas registered in the names of the spouses under TransferCertificate of Title No. T-21940 of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo.Spouses Rosendo H. Te and Ana Te were also theregistered owners of a parcel of land described in their titleas Lot No. 7340 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan.On September 6, 1973, Rosendo H. Te, with theconformity of Ana Te, sold this lot to Angelica F. Viajar andCelso F. Viajar for P5,000. A Torrens title was later issuedin the names of Angelica F. Viajar and Celso F. Viajar.Later, Angelica F. Viajar had Lot No. 7340 relocated andfound out that the property was in the possession of Ricardo Y. Ladrido. Consequently, she demanded its returnbut Ladrido refused.On February 15, 1974, Angelica F. Viajar and Celso F. Viajar instituted a civil action for recovery of possessionand damages against Ricardo Y. Ladrido. This case wasdocketed as Civil Case No. 9660 of the Court of FirstInstance of Iloilo. Summoned to plead, defendant Ladridofiled his answer with a counterclaim. Plaintiffs filed theirreply to the answer.  10/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANOTATED VOLUME 4/10 1.2.Subsequently, the complaint was amended to impleadRosendo H. Te as another defendant. Plaintiffs sought theannulment of the deed of sale and the restitution of thepurchase price with 408 408SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Viajar vs. Court of Appeals interest in the event the possession of defendant Ladrido issustained. Defendant Te filed his answer to the amendedcomplaint and he counterclaimed for damages. Plaintiffsanswered the counterclaim.During the pendency of the case, plaintiff Celso F. Viajarsold his rights over Lot No. 7340 to his mother and co-plaintiff, Angelica F. Viajar. For this reason, plaintiff  Angelica F. Viajar now appears to be the sole registeredowner of this lot.On May 25, 1978, defendant Ladrido died. He wassubstituted in the civil action by his wife, Leonor P.Ladrido, and children, namely: Lourdes Ladrido-Ignacio,Eugenio P. Ladrido and Manuel P. Ladrido, as partiesdefendants.The facts admitted by the parties during the pre-trialshow that the piece of real property which used to be LotNo. 7340 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan was located inbarangay Guibuanogan, Pototan, Iloilo; that it consisted of 20,089 square meters; that at the time of the cadastralsurvey in 1926, Lot No. 7511 and Lot No. 7340 wereseparated by the Suague River; that the area of 11,819square meters of what was Lot No. 7340 has been in thepossession of the defendants; that the area of 14,036 squaremeters, which was formerly the river bed of the SuagueRiver per cadastral survey of 1926, has also been in thepossession of the defendants; and that the plaintiffs havenever been in actual physical possession of Lot No. 7340. After trial on the merits, a second amended complaintwhich included damages was admitted.The plaintiffs raised the following issues to be resolved:Whether the change in the course of the SuagueRiver was sudden as claimed by the plaintiffs orgradual as contended by the defendants; Assuming arguendo it was gradual, whether or notthe plaintiffs are still entitled to Lot “B” appearingin Exhibit “4” and to one-half (1/2) of Lot “A,” alsoindicated in Exhibit “4;” and
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!