IGNACIO GRANDE, ET AL (Ignacio, Eulogia, Alfonso, Eulalia, and Sofia Grande) vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS,
DOMINGO CALALUNG, and ESTEBAN CALALUNG

Location:
Court of First Instance of Isabela
Ragan, municipality of Magsaysay, province of Isabela

Arguments, both sides:

Petitioners are the owners of a parcel of land acquired by inheritance from their deceased mother Patricia Angui
(who inherited it from her parents Isidro Angui and Ana Lopez, in whose name said land appears registered, as
shown by Original Certificate of Title No. 2982, issued on June 9, 1934). On January 25, 1958, petitioners instituted
the present action in the Court of First Instance of Isabela against respondents, to quiet title to said portion
(19,964 square meters) formed by accretion, alleging in their complaint that they and their predecessors-in-
interest, were formerly in peaceful and continuous possession thereof. Delay in filing of the case upon discovery in
1948 was allegedly caused by lack of funds for acquisition of the copy of certificate of title.
Respondents are asserting through evidence of tax declaration and witnesses that they have been in continuous,
open, and undisturbed possession of said portion, since prior to the year 1933 to the present.

Doctrine:
Alluvium - a deposit of clay, silt, sand, and gravel left by flowing streams in a river valley or delta, typically
producing fertile soil;
Article 457 of Civil Code: To the owners of lands adjoining(means “next to” or “joined with”) the banks of rivers
belong the accretion(means “increase in land”) which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the
waters.
Art. 714 of Civil Code: The ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by occupation

Facts:
 Petitioners are the owners of a parcel of land, with an area of 3.5032 hectares, located at barrio Ragan,
municipality of Magsaysay, province of Isabela
 Disputed land is the additional (due to accretion after many years) alluvial deposit of 19,964 square
meters (1.9964 hectares) located at northeastern boundary where Cagayan River was
 Respondents and their witnesses (neighbors) claim possession and accretion began some time on 1933 or
1934; respondents filed for taxation purposes of the land during 1948
 Court of First Instance of Isabela decided in favor of petitioners since accretion was found to have been
beside the land owned by petitioners, and also decided that accretions are immediately considered as
registered property therefore protected from prescription(CA says this is wrong)
 Court of Appeals decided in favor of respondents since evidence (tax declarations) and actions of
respondents support the fact that respondents have owned the property since 1934, therefore they
acquired the property through prescription; unlike petitioners who did not make tax declarations for their
property and had waited for almost 10 years before filing a case.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the accretion becomes automatically registered land just because the lot which receives it
is covered by a Torrens title thereby making the alluvial property imprescriptible
2. Whether or not respondents have acquired the alluvial property in question through prescription.

Ruling/Held:
1. NO. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and registration under the Torrens system of that
ownership is quite another. Ownership over the accretion received by the land adjoining a river is
governed by the Civil Code. Imprescriptibility of registered land is provided in the registration law.
Registration under the Land Registration and Cadastral Acts does not vest or give title to the land, but
merely confirms and thereafter protects the title already possessed by the owner, making it
imprescriptible by occupation of third parties. But to obtain this protection, the land must be placed
under the operation of the registration laws wherein certain judicial procedures have been provided.

The fact remains, however, that petitioners never sought registration of said alluvial property (which
was formed sometime after petitioners' property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2982 was
registered on June 9, 1934) up to the time they instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance
of Isabela in 1958.

2. YES. The Court of Appeals, after analyzing the evidence, found that respondents-appellees were in
possession of the alluvial lot since 1933 or 1934, openly, continuously and adversely, under a claim of
ownership up to the filing of the action in 1958. This finding of the existence of these facts, arrived at by
the Court of Appeals after an examination of the evidence presented by the parties, is conclusive as to
them.

The law on prescription applicable to the case is that provided in Act 190 and not the provisions of the
Civil Code, since the possession started in 1933 or 1934 when the pertinent articles of the old Civil Code
were not in force and before the effectivity of the new Civil Code in 1950. Hence, the conclusion of the
Court of Appeals that the respondents acquired alluvial lot in question by acquisitive prescription is in
accordance with law.