7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

1/15

LTD NOV 13, 2

G.R. No. 133140 August 10, 1999

JOSE MA. T. GARCIA,petitioner,vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. LUISITO & MA. LUISA MAGPAYO AN P!ILIPPINE "AN# OFCOMMUNICATIONS, respondents.

PUNO, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to set aside the decision rendered by

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 44! entitled "#ose $a. T. Garcia, %laintiff-Appellee versus

&pouses 'uisito and $a. 'uisa $a(payo and &heriff of $a)ati, *efendants, %hilippine +an) of

Counications, *efendant-Appellant".

The facts are as succinctly suaried by the appellate court, viz./

Atty. %edro 0. Garcia, in whose nae TCT No. &-123 coverin( a parcel of land identified

as 'ot situated at +el Air 0illa(e, $a)ati, was re(istered, sold with the consent of his

wife Reedios T. Garcia, the sae to their dau(hter $a. 'uisa $a(payo and her husband

'uisito$a(payo 6the $a(payos7.

8n $arch 5, 9, the $a(payos ort(a(ed the land to the %hilippine +an) ofCounications 6%+Co7 to secure a loan, :ive ;undred &i545 was issued in the nae of the $a(payos.

The *eed of Real ?state $ort(a(e was re(istered at the $a)ati Re(ister of *eeds and

annotated on the $a(payos title.

The $a(payos failed to pay their loan upon its aturity, hence, the ort(a(e was

e

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

2/15

LTD NOV 13, 2

issued to the defendants $a(payo spouses only on $arch , 9 . . . . The $a(payo

spouses could not have acBuired the said property erely by the e

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

3/15

LTD NOV 13, 2

Anent the second-assi(nent of error, petitioner contends that the followin( facts were aditted by

the parties in the trial court/

. The petitioner is a copulsory heir of the late spouses Atty. %edro 0. Garcia and

Reedios Tablan GarciaF

2. The property sub@ect of this dispute was previously the con@u(al property of the said

spousesF

1. The petitioner and his faily have been and are continuously to the present in actual

physical possession of the property. At the tie of the alle(ed sale to the $a(payo spouses,

petitioner was in possession of the propertyF

4. Ehen his other Reedios Tablan 6sic7 Garcia died, soetie in 8ctober, 9!, he

becae, by operation of law, a co-owner of the propertyF

5. Atty. %edro 0. Garcia, at the tie of the e

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

4/15

LTD NOV 13, 2

such ownership over a particular property.5The deed of sale operates as a foral or sybolic

delivery of the property sold and authories the buyer to use the docuent as proof of

ownership.3All said, the $a(payo spouses were already the owners when they ort(a(ed the

property to %+Co.

N 0?E E;?R?8:, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 44! is A::R$?*. Costs

a(ainst petitioner.1wphi1.nt

&8 8R*?R?*.

G.R. No. 1$%411 Ju' (3, (010

OFFICE OF T!E CITY MAYOR OF PARA)A*UE CITY, OFFICE OF T!E CITY AMINISTRATOROF PARA)A*UE CITY, OFFICE OF T!E CITY ENGINEER OF PARA)A*UE CITY, OFFICE OFT!E CITY PLANNING AN E+ELOPMENT COORINATOR, OFFICE OF T!E "ARANGAYCAPTAIN AN SANGGUNIANG PAM"ARANGAY OF "ARANGAY +ITALE, PARA)A*UE CITY,TERESITA A. GATC!ALIAN, ENRICO R. ESGUERRA, ERNESTO T. PRACALE, JR., MANUEL M.ARGOTE, CONRAO M. CANLAS, JOSEP!INE S. AUIGOY, ALLAN L. GONALES, ESTER C.ASE!AN, MANUEL A. FUENTES, - MYRNA P. ROSALES,%etitioners,vs.

MARIO . E"IO AN !IS C!ILREN/!EIRS -'2, ARTURO +. E"IO, EUARO +. E"IO,RENATO +. E"IO, LOURES E. MAGTANGO", MILA +. E"IO, - ARNEL +. E"IO,Respondents.

* ? C & 8 N

+ILLARAMA, JR., J.

+efore us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil %roced

aended, assailin( the #anuary 1, 2!! *ecisionand #une 9, 2!! Resolution2of the C

Appeals 6CA7 in CA-G.R. &% No. 15! alle(edly for bein( contrary to law and @urisprudence.

had reversed the 8rder1of the Re(ional Trial Court 6RTC7 of %araIaBue City, +ranch 3, iss

April 2, 2!!5 in Civil Case No. !5-!55.

+elow are the facts.

Respondents clai that they are the absolute owners of a parcel of land consistin( of 4!3 eters, ore or less, located at 9 0itale Copound in +aran(ay 0itale, %araIaBue C

covered by Ta< *eclaration Nos. !!2 and !42 in the nae of respondent $ario *. ?b

land was an accretion of Cut-cut cree). Respondents assert that the ori(inal occupant and pos

of the said parcel of land was their (reat (randfather, #ose 0itale. &oetie in 1!, #ose (

land to his son, %edro 0itale. :ro then on, %edro continuously and e

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

5/15

LTD NOV 13, 2

8n $arch 29, 2!!5, City Adinistrator NoliAldip sent a letter to the respondents orderin( the to

vacate the area within the ne

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

6/15

LTD NOV 13, 2

. E;?T;?R 8R N8T T;? *?C&8N AN* R?&8'T8N 8: T;? ;8N8RA+'? C8RT 8:

A%%?A'& T;AT R?&%8N*?NT& ;A0? A RG;T N ?&&? & N ACC8R* ET; T;? 'AE AN*

?&TA+'&;?* #R&%R*?NC?FD

. E;?T;?R 8R N8T T;? *?C&8N AN* R?&8'T8N 8: T;? ;8N8RA+'? C8RT 8:

A%%?A'& T;AT T;? &+#?CT '8T & A0A'A+'? :8R ACL&T0? %R?&CR%T8N & N

ACC8R* ET; T;? 'AE AN* ?&TA+'&;?* #R&%R*?NC?FD AN*

. E;?T;?R 8R N8T T;? &TAT? & AN N*&%?N&A+'? %ARTH T8 T;? C8$%'ANT M:'?* +H R?&%8N*?NT& N T;? '8E?R C8RT.21

The issues ay be narrowed down into two 627/ procedurally, whether the &tate is an indispensable

party to respondentsJ action for prohibitory in@unctionF and substantively, whether the character of

respondentsJ possession and occupation of the sub@ect property entitles the to avail of the relief of

prohibitory in@unction.

The petition is without erit.

An action for in@unction is brou(ht specifically to restrain or coand the perforance of an act.24t is

distinct fro the ancillary reedy of preliinary in@unction, which cannot e

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

7/15

LTD NOV 13, 2

n the case at bar, respondents assert that their predecessor-in-interest, %edro 0itale, had occupied

and possessed the sub@ect lot as early as 1!. n 34, respondent $ario ?bio secured a perit

fro the local (overnent of %araIaBue for the construction of their faily dwellin( on the said lot. n

33, %edro e

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

8/15

LTD NOV 13, 2

entered upon the land under clai of ownership. %etitioners also as)ed for daa(es correspondin(

to the value of the fruits of the land as well as attorney=s fees and costs. n their answer 6dated

:ebruary 9, 597, respondents clai ownership in theselves, assertin( that they have been in

continuous, open, and undisturbed possession of said portion, since prior to the year 11 to the

present.

After trial, the Court of :irst nstance of sabela, on $ay 4, 5, rendered a decision ad@ud(in( the

ownership of the portion in Buestion to petitioners, and orderin( respondents to vacate the preises

and deliver possession thereof to petitioners, and to pay to the latter %25!.!! as daa(es and costs.&aid decision, in part, reads/

t is aditted by the parties that the land involved in this action was fored by the (radual

deposit of alluviu brou(ht about by the action of the Ca(ayan River, a navi(able river. Ee

are inclined to believe that the accretion was fored on the northeastern side of the land

covered by 8ri(inal Certificate of Title No. 292 after the survey of the re(istered land in

1, because the surveyors found out that the northeastern boundary of the land surveyed

by the was the Ca(ayan River, and not the land in Buestion. Ehich is indicative of the fact

that the accretion has not yet started or be(un in 1. And, as declared by %edro 'aan,

defendant witness and the boundary owner on the northwest of the re(istered land of the

plaintiffs, the accretion was a little ore than one hectare, includin( the stony portion, in

4! or 4. Therefore, the declarations of the defendant *oin(o Calalun( and his

witness, 0icente C. +acani, to the effect that the land in Buestion was fored by accretion

since 11 do not only contradict the testiony of defendants= witness %edro 'aan, butcould not overthrow the incontestable fact that the accretion with an area of 4 hectare ore

or less, was fored in 49, reason for which, it was only declared in that sae year for

ta

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

9/15

LTD NOV 13, 2

provisions of the Civil Code on accession/ and these provisions do not preclude acBuisition

of the addition area by another person throu(h prescription. This Court has held as uch in

the case of !alindez% et al. v. aguisa% et al., CA-G.R. No. 24-R, #uly , 5.

Ee now proposed to review the second (round relied upon by the trial court, re(ardin( the

len(th of tie that the defendants have been in possession. *oin(o Calalun( testified that

he occupied the land in Buestion for the first tie in 14, not in 49 as claied by the

plaintiffs. The area under occupancy (radually increased as the years went by. n 43, he

declared the land for purposes of ta

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

10/15

LTD NOV 13, 20

Code were not in force and before the effectivity of the new Civil Code in 5!. ;ence, the conclusion

of the Court of Appeals that the respondents acBuired alluvial lot in Buestion by acBuisitive

prescription is in accordance with law.

The decision of the Court of Appeals under review is hereby affired, with costs a(ainst the

petitioners. &o ordered.

G.R. No. 9(151 M-78 1%, 1991

SIMPLICIO "INALAY, PONCIANO GANNA"AN, NICANOR MACUTAY, OMINGO ROSGREGORIO ARGONA, EUSTA*UIO "AUA, FLORENTINO ROSALES, TEOMA""ORANG, PATRICIO MA""ORANG - FULGENCIO MORA,pet

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

11/15

LTD NOV 13, 20

vs.

GUILLERMO MANALO - COURT OF APPEALS,respondents.

*osefin +e Al,an -aw #ffice for etitioners.

FELICIANO, J.:

The late #ud(e Taccad ori(inally owned a parcel of land situated in Tuauini, sabela havin( an

estiated area of twenty 62!7 hectares. The western portion of this land borderin( on the Ca(ayanRiver has an elevation lower than that of the eastern portion which borders on the national road.

Throu(h the years, the western portion would periodically (o under the waters of the Ca(ayan River

as those waters swelled with the coin( of the rains. The suber(ed portion, however, would re-

appear durin( the dry season fro #anuary to Au(ust. t would reain under water for the rest of the

year, that is, fro &epteber to *eceber durin( the rainy season.

The ownership of the landholdin( eventually oved fro one person to another. 8n $ay 5,

respondent Guillero $analo acBuired 9.35 hectares thereof fro :austina Taccad, dau(hter of

#ud(e #uan Taccad. The land sold was described in the *eed of Absolute &ale as follows/

. . . a parcel of a(ricultural land in +alu(, Tuauini, sabela, containin( an area of 9.35!!

hectares, ore or lessF bounded on the North by :rancisco :orto on the ?ast by National

RoadF on &outh by #ulian Tuolva and on the Eest by Ca(ayan RiverF declared for ta

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

12/15

LTD NOV 13, 20

%etitioners filed their answer denyin( the aterial alle(ations of the coplaint. The case was then set

for trial for failure of the parties to reach an aicable a(reeent or to enter into a stipulation of

facts. 8n ! Noveber 92, the trial court rendered a decision with the followin( dispositive

portion/

E;?R?:8R?, in the li(ht of the fore(oin( preises, the Court renders @ud(ent a(ainst

the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff and orders/

. That plaintiff, Guillero $analo, is declared the lawful owner of the land in Buestion, 'otNo. 92, %ls-34 of TuauiniCadastre, and which is ore particularly described in

para(raph 2-b of the CoplaintF

2. That the defendants are hereby ordered to vacate the preises of the land in Buestion,

'ot No. 92, %ls-34 of TuauiniCadastre, and which is ore particularly described in

para(raph 2-b of the CoplaintF

1. That the defendants are bein( restrained fro enterin( the preises of the land in

Buestion, 'ot No. 92, %ls-34 of TuauiniCadastre, and which is ore particularly

described in para(raph 2-b of the CoplaintF and

4. That there is no pronounceent as to attorney=s fees and costs.

&8 8R*?R?*.9

%etitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which, however, affired the decision of the trial court.

They filed a otion for reconsideration, without success.

Ehile petitioners insist that 'ot 92 is part of an island surrounded by the two 627 branches of the

Ca(ayan River, the Court of Appeals found otherwise. The Court of Appeals concurred with the

findin( of the trial court that 'ot 92 cannot be considered separate and distinct fro 'ot 1! since

the eastern branch of the Ca(ayan River substantially dries up for the ost part of the year such that

when this happens, 'ot 92 becoes physically 6 i.e., by land7 connected with the dried up bed owned

by respondent $analo. +oth courts below in effect re@ected the assertion of petitioners that the

depression on the earth=s surface which separates 'ot 1! and 'ot 92 is, durin( part of the year, the

bed of the eastern branch of the Ca(ayan River.

t is a failiar rule that the findin(s of facts of the trial court are entitled to (reat respect, and th

carry even ore wei(ht when affired by the Court of Appeals. This is in reco(nition of the

advanta(e on the part of the trial court of bein( able to observe first-hand the deporten

witnesses while testifyin(. #urisprudence is li)ewise settled that the Court of Appeals is t

arbiter of Buestions of fact.!+ut whether a conclusion drawn fro such findin(s of facts is co

a Buestion of law co(niable by this Court.

n the instant case, the conclusion reached by both courts below apparently collides with their f

that periodically at the onset of and durin( the rainy season, river water f lows throu(h the eastof the Ca(ayan River. The trial court held/

The Court believes that the land in controversy is of the nature and character of

6Accretion7, for it appears that durin( the dry season, the body of water separatin( th

land in controversy 6'ot No. 92, %ls-347 and the two 627 parcels of land which the

purchased fro Gre(orio Ta(uba and #ustina TaccadCayaba becoes a arshy land

only si< 637 inches deep and twelve 627 eters in width at its widest in the north

6?

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

13/15

LTD NOV 13, 20

'a(una de +ay is the (round covered by its waters when at their hi(hest depth durin( the

dry season, that is up to the northeastern boundary of the two parcels of land in Buestion.

Ee find the fore(oin( rulin( to be analo(ous to the case at bar. The hi(hest ordinary level of the

waters of the Ca(ayan River is that attained durin( the dry season which is confined only on the west

side of 'ot 92D and 'ot 922D. This is the natural Ca(ayan river itself. The sall residual of water

between 'ot 92D and 1! is part of the sall strea already in e

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

14/15

LTD NOV 13, 20

y 1. lasri,eras. Ahorabien/ son estas dos ultiascosassiepre de doiniopublico, coo las

a(uas

ealmente no puedeimaginarseunrio sin alveo y sin ri,era2de suerte Bue al decir el Codigo

civil que losrios son de dominiopu,lico% parece que de,eirimplicito el dominiopu,lico de

aquellostreselementos que integran el rio. %orotra parte, encuanto a losalveos o

caucesteneos la declaraciondel art.345% num 1, donde dice/ son de dominion

pu,lico. . . losrios y suscaucesnaturalesF declaracion Bue concuerda con lo Bue dispone

el art.63 de la ley de 7Aguas8% segun el cual% son de dominion pu,lico9.losalveos o cauces

de los arroyosBue no se hallencoprendidosen el art. 11, y 2. losalveos o caucesnaturales

de losriosen la e

7/24/2019 LTD NOV 13, 2015

15/15

LTD NOV 13, 20

satisfactory and the Court feels copelled to refrain fro deterinin( the ownership and possession

of 'ot 92, ad@ud(in( neither petitioners nor respondent $analo as owner6s7 thereof.

E;?R?:8R?, the *ecision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR C0 No. !492 are

hereby &?T A&*?. Respondent $analo is hereby declared the owner of -ot 645. The re(ularly

suber(ed portion or the eastern bed of the Ca(ayan River is hereby *?C'AR?* to be property of

public doinion. The ownership of 'ot 92 shall be deterined in an appropriate action that

instituted by the interested partiesinter se. No pronounceent as to costs.

&8 8R*?R?*.