1.

Forms of accession natural:

a. Alluvium
b. Avulsion
c. Change of course of rivers
d. Formation of islands
2.

Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited it is of broader term, whereas, alluvium applies
only to the soil deposited on river banks.

By law, the accretion is owned by the owner of the estate fronting the river bank or the riparian owner, in alluvium, t he
owner of the adjacent lot will own the increase.

3.
Alluvium gives to the owners of land adjoining the banks of
rivers or streams any accretion which is gradually received from
the effects of the current of water. The rationale for the rule is to
provide some kind of compensation to owners of land continually
exposed to the destructive force of water and subjected to
various easements.

4.

a. The deposit should be gradual and imperceptible as a

Natural process ; Current must be that of a river; does
not apply to accretion by man-made.

b. Current must be that of a rive (if lake, the deposit

may not be called alluvium but the principle is the
same,

c. The river must continue to exist (otherwise, if the river

disappears, Art. 58 PD 1067, in re: Art. 461 NCC, shall
apply);

d. The increase must be comparatively little.

5.

Vda. De Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals, Salasalan, Rabaya, Labis

FACTS:
Antonio Nazareno is an owner of a titled property situated beside an accretion area along the
banks of Cagayan River. Jose Salasalan & Leo Rabaya leased parcels of land from Nazareno. When
Salsalan & Rabaya stopped paying rentals, Nazareno filed an ejectment suit. The Municipal Trial Court
ruled in favor of Nazareno; the RTC affirmed the decision. Thus, Nazareno filed an application with the
Bureau of Lands to perfect his title over the accretion area being claimed by him.

 VDA. DE NAZARENO argued that: The subject land is a private land being an accretion to
Antonio Nazareno’s titled property and that accumulation was gradual and imperceptible,
resulting from the action of the waters or current of the Balacanas Creek and Cagayan River.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the subject land is a public land?

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the subject land is part of the public domain since the accretion was man-made or
artificial. Under Article 457 of the Civil Code:

“To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive
from the effects of the current of the waters.”

Accretion to be rightfully claimed by the riparian owner must not be man made or artificial. When the accretion
was caused by the sawdust dumped on the river, the riparian owner cannot claim the deposited land because it
already formed part of the public domain.

REPUBLIC VS. CA

FACTS:

The respondents were registered owners of a parcel of land can. They filed an
application for the registration of three lots adjacent to their fishpond, but because of
the recommendation of the Commissioner, they only pushed for the registration of
two. The RTC and CA granted the petition despite the opposition of the Bureau of
Lands.

The respondents based their claim on accretions to their fishponds. They presented
a lone witness . The Bureau of Lands argue that the lands in dispute are not
accretions. They assert that what actually happened was that the respondents
simply transferred their dikes simply further down the river bed of the Meycauayan
River. Thus, if there was any accretion to speak of, it was man-made.

Respondents counter that the their evidence shows that accretion happened without
human intervention and that the transfer of the dikes occurred only after.

ISSUE:

Whether or not accretion took place.

RULING: No

Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature.

There is no evidence that the addition to said property was made gradually through
the effects of the currents of the two rivers. The lands in question total almost 4
hectares of land, which are highly doubtful to have been caused by accretion. The
lone witness testified that she observed an increase in the area in 1939, but the lots
in question were not included in the survey of their adjacent property conducted in
1940. They were also not included in the Cadastral Survey of the entire Municipality
of Maycauayan between the years 1958-1960. If the overseer was indeed telling the
truth, the accretion was sudden, not gradual. When the respondents transferred their
dikes towards the river beds, the dikes were meant for reclamation purposes and not
to protect their property from the destructive force of the waters of the river. The lots
in question were portions of the bed of the Meycauayan River and are therefore
classified as public property.

Heirs of Navarro v. IAC

Facts: 

Pascual filed an application for foreshore lease covering a tract of foreshore land. This application
was denied. Subsequently, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, also now deceased, Emiliano
Navarro, filed a fishpond application with the Bureau of Fisheries . Initially the application was
denied, eventually however the grant was given. Pascual claimed that this land is an accretion to his
property, The Talisay River as well as the Bulacan River flow downstream and meet at the Manila
Bay thereby depositing sand and silt on Pascual's property resulting in an accretion thereon.
Sinforoso Pascual claimed the accretion as the riparian owner.

Anchoring their claim of ownership on Article 457 of the Civil Code, petitioners vigorously argue that
the disputed 14-hectare land is an accretion caused by the joint action of the Talisay and Bulacan
Rivers which run their course on the eastern and western boundaries, respectively, of petitioners'
own tract of land.

Issue: 

Whether or not the petitioners can rightfully claim the land under the principle of accretion

Held: 

The petitioner’s claim is misplaced. The principle of accretion is only applicable to owners whose
estates are adjacent to rivers as stated in Article 457 of the Civil Code. The disputed land is an
accretion not on a river bank but on a sea bank, or on what used to be the foreshore of Manila Bay
which adjoined petitioners' own tract of land on the northern side. As such, the applicable law is not
Article 457 of to Civil Code but Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866.
 As part of the public domain, the herein disputed land is intended for public uses, and "so long as
the land in litigation belongs to the national domain and is reserved for public uses, it is not capable
of being appropriated by any private person, except through express authorization granted in due
form by a competent authority."

6.
The right of the owners of the bank adjacent to rivers to the
accretion which they receive by virtue of the action of the waters of the
river is ipso jure and there is no need of an action of the owner of the
bank to possess the new addition since it belongs to him by the very fact
of the addition.
However, such accretion does not automatically become registered
land just because the lot which receives the same is covered by Torrens
title. Thus, the accretion to registered land does not preclude acquisition
of the additional area by another person through prescription

7.
Article 458 of the New Civil Code serves as an exception to the
general rule on alluvion. This article refers only
to ponds and lagoons but is not applicable to a lake since with regard to
a lake the rule of alluvion is applicable in accordance with the Spanish
Law of Waters.

8.

Avulsiom is the process whereby the current of a river, creek of torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known

portion of land and transfers it to another estate. It implies a violent tearing or breaking away.

9.

In alluvium the deposit of the soil is gradual while in avulsion there is sudden or abrupt process may be seen.
Further, the soil in alluvium cannot be identified, while, in avulsion the soil is identifiable or verifiable.

Lastly, in alluvium the property belongs to the owner of property to which it is attached, on the other hand, in
avulsion the property belongs to owner from whose property it was detached.

10.

The rule is that the owner of the land from where the portion
is detached retains the ownership of the segregated portion but he is
required to remove the same within two years Should the owner fail to remove
the detached portion within two years, the same shall belong to the
owner of the land to which it is attached following the principle of accession.

In avulsion, accession takes place only after two

years from the attachment or incorporation of the segregated portion of
land to the riparian land upon failure of its owner to remove the same
within said period.

11.

With respect to the uprooted trees the rule in avulsion is that, trees that are uprooted and carried away
by the current of the waters
to another estate, the owner of the tree retains ownership of the same
but he is required to claim them within a period of six months. And if the uprooted trees have
been transplanted by the owner of the
land upon which the trees may have been cast and said trees have taken
root in said land, then the owner of the trees, upon making the claim, is
required to refund the expenses incurred in gathering them or in putting
them in a safe place, including the expenses incurred by the owner of
the land for the preservation of the trees

12.

The rule under Art 461 with regard to the abandoned river provides that if there is a natural change in
the course of the waters of the river,
the abandoned riverbeds shall ipso facto belong to the owners whose
lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost

But, the owners of the land adjoining the

old bed have the right to compel the owners of the land occupied by the
new bed to sell to them the old bed at a price not greater than the value
of the land occupied by the new bed. Such option is granted to them
by law and not to the owners of the land onto which the river changed
its course.

13.

Requisites under Article 461 are as follows:

1. The change must be sudden, gradual;

2. The changing of the course must be more or less permanent and not temporary over flooding of another’s
land.

3. The change of the river bed must be natural one and not by artificial means;
4. There must be a definite abandonment by the government. No effort has been made to bring back the river to
its old bed;
5. The river must continue to exist.

14.

RONQUILLO V. CA, 195 SCRA 433

Facts:

Rosendo del Rosario was a registered owner of a parcel of

land Adjoining said lot is a dried-up portion of the old
Estero Calubcub occupied by Mario Ronquillo. Del Rosarios claim that
long before the year 1930, Rosendo had been in possession of his parcel of land
including the adjoining dried-up portion of the old Estero Calubcub. Because
Ronquillo refused to vacate, the Del Rosarios fi led an action in court to be declared the rightful owners of the
dried-up portion. Ronquillo, on the other
hand, argued that the dried-up portion is part of the land of the public domain.

Issue: Whether or not Art 461 applies.

Held:

The change in the course of Estero Calubcub was caused, not

by natural courses, but due to the dumping of garbage therein by the people
surrounding the neighborhood. Hence, Art. 370 of the Old Civil Code (now
Art. 461) does not apply. It applies only if there is a natural change in the
course of the waters. Consequently, the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub
should be considered as forming part of the land of the public domain

BAES V. CA,

A parcel of land was dug by the government for the construction of a canal to  streamline  the 
river.    Baes  eventually  bought  the  land,  which  was subdivided  into  3  parcels.    The  middle 
parcel  covered  the  canal.    The government  gave  him  another  equivalent  parcel  as 
compensation.    After resurvey, it was discovered that there were errors.  New TCT’s were issued to 
represent  the  enlargements.    Government  opposed  as  the  lots  were allegedly unlawfully
enlarged.  Baes averred that he should own dried up land as the creek was discovered to the canal in
his property.