Gellada, Mirasol & Vallar Roque E. Evidente: 134 Philippine Reports Annotated
Gellada, Mirasol & Vallar Roque E. Evidente: 134 Philippine Reports Annotated
Gellada, Mirasol & Vallar Roque E. Evidente: 134 Philippine Reports Annotated
134
GUTIERREZ-DAVID, J.:
This is an action filed with the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo for the recovery of the possession of a portion of land
designated as Lot No. 908-Q with an area of 5,931 square
meters, which is alleged to have been separated from
plaintiff's land by the "natural change" in the course of a
river. The case having been decided adversely against the
plaintiff, the latter appealed to the Court of Appeals. The
court, however, certified the case to this Court on the
ground that it was decided upon a stipulation of facts and
for that reason questions of fact can no longer be raised on
appeal.
It appears that the land in dispute was formerly a part
of Lot No. 908 of the Cadastral Survey of Jaro, Iloilo, which
lot was acquired by plaintiff C. N. Hodges from Salustiano
Mirasol in January, 1950, and subsequently registered in
his name as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-2504 issued by the Register of Deeds of Iloilo. This
property was bounded on the north by the Salog River.
Adjoining that river on the other side is Lot No. 2290,
which was purchased by defendant Amador D. Garcia from
Dr. Manuel Hechanova on April 15, 1950. On July 12 of
that same year, defendant had the land he bought
resurveyed. The survey plan disclosed that the land, which
was originally surveyed in 1912 and was then bounded on
the SE and SW by the Salog river, had increased in area by
the river bank, and that the added area, which bounds the
land on the SE and SW, is in turn bounded on the SE and
SW by the Salog river. In due time, defendant applied for
the registration of the additional area under the Land
Registration Act,
135
136
366 of the old Civil Code; Art. 457 of the new.) Such
accretions are natural incidents to land bordering on
running streams and the provisions of the Civil Code in
that respect are not affected by the Land Registration Act.
(Payatas Estate Improvement Co. vs. Tuason, supra)
In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is
affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.
Judgment affirmed.
_______________