City Mayor of Paranaque vs.
Ebio
[G.R. No. 178411 : June 23, 2010]
Doctrine:
ART. 84. Accretions deposited gradually upon lands contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers, and lakes, by
accessions or sediments from the waters thereof, belong to the owners of such lands.
Art. 457. 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.
Facts.
Respondents claim that they are the absolute owners of a parcel of land consisting of 406 square meters, more
or less, located at 9781 Vitalez Compound in Barangay Vitalez, Paranaque City and covered by Tax Declaration
Nos. 01027 and 01472 in the name of respondent Mario D. Ebio. Said land was an accretion of Cut-cut creek.
Respondents assert that the original occupant and possessor of the said parcel of land was their great
grandfather, Jose Vitalez. Sometime in 1930, Jose gave the land to his son, Pedro Vitalez. From then on, Pedro
continuously and exclusively occupied and possessed the said lot.
Meanwhile, in 1961, respondent Mario Ebio married Pedro's daughter, Zenaida. Upon Pedro's advice, the
couple established their home on the said lot. Ebio got his construction permit of their house in the City
government of Paranaque.
On April 21, 1987, Pedro executed a notarized Transfer of Rights ceding his claim over the entire parcel of land
in favor of Mario Ebio. Subsequently, the tax declarations under Pedro's name were cancelled and new ones
were issued in Mario Ebio's name.
On March 30, 1999, the Office of the Sangguniang Barangay of Vitalez passed Resolution No. 08, series of
1999 seeking assistance from the City Government of Paranaque for the construction of an access road along
Cut-cut Creek located in the said barangay traversing the lot occupied by the respondents. When the city
government advised all the affected residents to vacate the said area, respondents immediately registered their
opposition thereto. As a result, the road project was temporarily suspended.
Respondents filed letter-complaints before the Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands, the Department of
Interior and Local Government and the Office of the Vice Mayor.
On March 28, 2005, City Administrator Noli Aldip sent a letter to the respondents ordering them to vacate the
area within the next thirty (30) days, or be physically evicted from the said property
Threatened of being evicted, respondents went to the RTC of Paranaque City on April 21, 2005 and applied for
a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners.In the course of the proceedings, respondents admitted
before the trial court that they have a pending application for the issuance of a sales patent before the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Contention of the Respondent:
The land was an accretion of Cut-cut creek. Which was acquired by their great grandfather as the original
occupant and possessor of the land.
Contention of the Petitioner:
Petitioner, however, argue that since the creek, being a tributary of the river, is classified as part of the
public domain, any land that may have formed along its banks through time should also be considered as part of
the public domain.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent established his right to the property despite his application
for the sales patent has not yet been granted
Held: RTC Ruling: The petition was denied for lack of merit.
According to the RTC:
The trial court reasoned that respondents were not able to prove successfully that they have an established right
to the property since they have not instituted an action for confirmation of title and their application for sales
patent has not yet been granted.
Respondents moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied
CA Ruling: Favored the respondents and reversed the decision of RTC.
According to the Court of Appeals-The subject of acquisitive prescription in the instant case is the accreted portion which [was] duly proven by
the Appellants. It is clear that since 1930, Appellants together with their predecessor-in-interest, PEDRO
VITALEZ[,] have been in exclusive possession of the subject property and starting 1964 had introduced
improvements thereon as evidenced by their construction permits. Thus, even by extraordinary acquisitive
prescription[,] Appellants have acquired ownership of the property in question since 1930 even if the adjoining
RL 8 was subsequently registered in the name of Guaranteed Homes.
SC Ruling: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF CA
According to SC:
Hence, while it is true that a creek is a property of public dominion, but the land which is formed by the gradual
and imperceptible accumulation of sediments along its banks does not form part of the public domain by clear
provision of law.
Respondents' application for sales patent, however, should not be used to prejudice or derogate what may be
deemed as their vested right over the subject property. The sales patent application should instead be considered
as a mere superfluity particularly since ownership over the land, which they seek to buy from the State, is
already vested upon them by virtue of acquisitive prescription. Moreover, the State does not have any authority
to convey a property through the issuance of a grant or a patent if the land is no longer a public land
