New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco G.R. No. 168800, April 16, 2009

"accretion"


Facts:
The petitioner filed a complaint on rescission/declaration of nullity of contract,
reconveyance and damages against the respondent. Petitioner allegedly authorized
Vicente Cuevas being its Chairman and President to apply on its behalf to acquire
two parcels of land by right of accretion. Cuevas applied the lot in his name and while
pending approval of the application with the Bureau of Lands he assigned his rights to
the respondent. An order from the Director of Lands was issued transferring rights from
Cuevas to Tanjuatco. During the preliminary hearing, respondent filed a motion for
demurrer of evidence after the petitioner presented their evidence. The RTC dismissed
the case for insufficiencies of evidence and ruled that respondent is an innocent purchaser
hence this petition for certiorari.




Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in dismissing the case upon demurrer of evidence?
Whether or not the respondent is an innocent purchaser of the property in dispute?

Ruling:
As to the first issue the court held that it is a question of fact which is improper for
a petition for review since the Supreme Court can only review a question of law. A
question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the
probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted, and
the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.

The court held that to warrant a reconveyance of land where the mode of acquiring a
property is by accretion, the following requisites should be met: (1) that the deposition
of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action
of the waters of the river; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent
to the banks of rivers. It is not enough to be a riparian owner in order to enjoy the
benefits of accretion. One who claims the right of accretion must show by preponderant
evidence that he has met all the conditions provided by law. Petitioner has notably
failed in this regard as it did not offer any evidence to prove that it has satisfied the
foregoing requisites. Respondent derived his title to the lands from Original Certificate
of Title (OCT) No. 245 registered in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. A
certification was issued confirming that said lands were verified to be Alienable and
Disposable property of the State entitling it to transfer ownership to the respondent.
Moreover, petitioners failed to establish fraudulent registration of ownership of the title
to respondent since they did not provide evidence that Cuevas is empowered by the
petitioner to apply a registration of the property in their behalf. The respondent may
safely rely on what appears on the face of the registered title hence he is a buyer in good
faith. Petitioner was not able to substantiate its claim for ownership of the property
therefore their claim for reconveyance should be denied.