FACTS:

The petitioner in this case owns a property that is adjacent to the land sought to be registered. The petitioner's registered property is bounded by the Talisay River on the east, the Bulacan River on the west, and the Manila Bay on the north. The land sought to be registered was formed at the northern tip of the petitioner's property. The issue in this case is whether the land should be considered an accretion that naturally accrues to the riparian owner or if it should be considered as foreshore land.

The respondent's predecessor-in-interest, Sinforoso Pascual, filed an application for foreshore lease covering a tract of land in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan. This application was denied, as well as his motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Emiliano Navarro, filed a fishpond application with the Bureau of Fisheries for the same area of foreshore land. Initially, the application was denied on the grounds that the property forms part of the public domain. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the Director of Fisheries granted the application to the extent of seven hectares certified by the Bureau of Forestry as suitable for fishpond purposes. The Municipal Council of Balanga, Bataan, opposed Navarro's application but their appeal was denied by the Secretary of Natural Resources and the Executive Secretary.

Pascual also filed an application to register and confirm his title to a parcel of land, claiming it as an accretion to his property. The land is described as being bounded by the Talisay River, Bulacan River, and Manila Bay. The Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry opposed Pascual's application, claiming that the land is a portion of the public domain and, therefore, belongs to the government. The Director of Lands eventually withdrew his opposition, leaving the Director of Forestry as the sole oppositor. Navarro also filed an opposition to Pascual's application, arguing that the land sought to be registered is part of the public domain.

During the pendency of the land registration case, Pascual filed a separate ejectment case against Navarro and others who allegedly claimed and possessed a portion of the subject property. The case was decided against Pascual and he appealed it to the Court of First Instance. The ejectment case was consolidated with the land registration case and was jointly tried by the court.

The consolidated cases involved a dispute over a land sought to be registered by the heirs of Sinforoso Pascual, the private respondents. The land in question was adjacent to the land owned by the applicants and was bounded by the Talisay and Bulacan rivers on the east and west, and the Manila Bay on the north. The trial court ruled that the land was foreshore land and cannot be subject to land registration proceedings. The heirs of Pascual appealed and argued that the land was an accretion formed by the action of the Talisay and Bulacan rivers. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and granted the petition for registration, excluding a certain portion of the land. The appellate court reasoned that the land at issue was formed at the tip of the applicants' land, adding thereto the land to be registered. It explained that the land faced the Manila Bay, but the deposition of sediments, sand, and silt was caused by the action of the Talisay and Bulacan rivers, rather than the sea. The appellate court also rejected the argument that the land was formed by the planting of trees by Pascual, as the land extended beyond the area where the trees were planted and was above sea level with abundant vegetation.

The subject land in this case is found at the shore of the Manila Bay in the Philippines, facing the private property of the respondents (appellants in the lower court). The appellants claimed that the subject land is a foreshore and should be classified as public land. However, the Bureau of Lands found through ocular inspection that the subject land is an accretion formed by the action of the Talisay and Bulacan rivers. According to the report of the Acting Provincial Officer, the two rivers brought significant amounts of soil and sediments during floods, thus raising the soil and forming the subject land. About four-fifths of the area applied for is now dry land, covered with thickly growing palapat trees. Based on the report, the Solicitor General representing the Bureau of Lands withdrew his opposition, except for a portion recommended for exclusion as foreshore.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the disputed land is an accretion in favor of the riparian owner or foreshore land.

RULING:

1. The disputed land is not an accretion caused by the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers but rather a foreshore land formed by the action of the sea (Manila Bay).

   • The Supreme Court found that the disputed land at the northern portion of private respondents’ tract of land was formed by the withdrawal of Manila Bay's waters and the accretion caused by sea waves, not by riverine action. Therefore, it cannot be considered an accretion in favor of the riparian owner.

   • As such, the land, being part of the foreshore, remains part of the public domain under Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866.

   • The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and set aside and the ruling of the Court of First Instance was reinstated, affirming that the land in question is foreshore land and part of public domain, hence not registrable in favor of private respondents.

PRINCIPLES:

• Accretion (Article 457 of the Civil Code)

  • Accretion requires (1) gradual and imperceptible accumulation of soil, (2) resulting from river action, and (3) on land adjacent to the river bank.

• Foreshore Land

  • Land formed along the edge of a sea or lake is considered foreshore and cannot be claimed as private property unless declared otherwise by competent authority. Foreshore land forms part of the public domain.

• Riparian vs. Littoral Ownership

  • Riparian owner: Owner of land adjacent to a river bank.

  • Littoral owner: Owner of land bordering the shore of the sea or other tidal waters.

• Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866

  • Lands added to the shores by action of the sea form part of the public domain and cannot be appropriated as private property unless no longer needed for public utility, special industries, or coast guard services, and declared as such by the government.