G.R. No. 116290 - DIONISIA P. BAGAIPO, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND LEONOR LOZANO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant. [9] Hence, this appeal. Petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in: ....NOT GIVING PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE RELOCATION SURVEY (EXHIBIT "B") PREPARED BY LICENSED GEODETIC ENGINEER GERSACIO MAGNO. THE CASE OF "DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS. HEIRS OF JUANA CAROLINA" 140 SCRA 396 CITED BY THE RESPONDENT COURT IN DISREGARDING EXHIBIT "B" IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR. ....NOT FINDING THAT ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THE QUESTIONED LOT 415-C (EXHIBIT "B-1") OCCUPIED BY RESPONDENT LEONOR LOZANO WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCRETION, THE PRINCIPLE OF ACCRETION CANNOT AND DOES NOT APPLY IN THE INSTANT CASE TO FAVOR SAID RESPONDENT BECAUSE SAID LOT 415-C IS WITHIN AND FORM PART OF PETITIONER'S LAND DESCRIBED IN TCT NO. 15757 (EXHIBIT "A") ....FINDING PETITIONER GUILTY OF LACHES WHEN SHE INSTITUTED THE SUIT. ....NOT ORDERING RESPONDENT LEONOR LOZANO TO VACATE AND SURRENDER LOT 415-C IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER AND FOR HIM TO PAY PETITIONER DAMAGES FOR ITS UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION THEREOF. ....NOT HOLDING PETITIONER ENTITLED TO THE ABANDONED RIVER BED. [10] For this Court's resolution are the following issues: Did the trial court err in holding that there was no change in course of the Davao River such that petitioner owns the abandoned river bed pursuant to Article 461 of the Civil Code? Did private respondent own Lot 415-C in accordance with the principle of accretion under Article 457? Should the relocation survey prepared by a licensed geodetic engineer be disregarded since it was not approved by the Director of Lands? Is petitioner's claim barred by laches? On the first issue. The trial court and the appellate court both found that the decrease in land area was brought about by erosion and not a change in the river's course. This conclusion was reached after the trial judge observed during ocular inspection that the banks located on petitioner's land are sharp, craggy and very much higher than the land on the other side of the river. Additionally, the riverbank on respondent's side is lower and gently sloping. The lower land therefore naturally received the alluvial soil carried by the river current. [11] These findings are factual, thus conclusive on this Court, unless there are strong and exceptional reasons, or they are unsupported by the evidence on record, or the judgment itself is based on a misapprehension of facts. [12] These factual findings are based on an ocular inspection of the judge and convincing testimonies, and we find no convincing reason to disregard or disbelieve them. The decrease in petitioner's land area and the corresponding expansion of respondent's property were the combined effect of erosion and accretion respectively. Art. 461 of the Civil Code is inapplicable. Petitioner cannot claim ownership over the old abandoned riverbed because the same is inexistent. The riverbed's former location cannot even be pinpointed with particularity