A+ A A-

VIAJAR v. CA

VIAJAR v. CA

It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian owner against the diminution of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream or river.

FACTS:

Private respondents Spouses Ladrido are owners of Lot 7511 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan Iloilo. Petitioners are owners of the Lot 7340, which they bought from the Te. Viajar had lot 7340 relocated and found out that the property was in the possession of Ladrido. She demanded the return but the latter refused. She instituted a civil action for recovery of possession and damages. She also impleaded Te as defedant for the reason that if Ladrido is going to be favored then the sale was to be annulled and plaintiff must be reimbursed. During the trial it was proven that during the cadastral survey in 1926, the two lots were separated by the Suague River and that a part of the land of Lot 7340 and the old river bed were in the possession of the defendants and that the plaintiffs have never been in actual physical possession.


CFI ruled in favor of the defendants which the CA confirmed. There was a mention in the case that the issue from which the decision of the CFI was not the issue appealed in the CA so the affirmation made by the CA should be void.


ISSUES:

1) Whether or not the change in the course of the Suague River was gradual or sudden
2) Whether or not the plaintiffs are protected by the Torrens System (in relation to the dimunition of the area of their land because the plaintiffs are contending that Art 457 must be interpreted as applicable only to unregistered lands)


RULING:

It was established in the trial that for a period of 40 years the Suague river overflowed its banks yearly and the property of the defendant gradually received deposits of soil from the effects of the current of the river.


It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian owner against the dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream or river. Accretions which the banks of the river may gradually receive from the effect of the current become the property of the owners of the banks.


VIAJAR v. CA

VIAJAR v. CA

It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian owner against the diminution of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream or river.

FACTS:

Private respondents Spouses Ladrido are owners of Lot 7511 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan Iloilo. Petitioners are owners of the Lot 7340, which they bought from the Te. Viajar had lot 7340 relocated and found out that the property was in the possession of Ladrido. She demanded the return but the latter refused. She instituted a civil action for recovery of possession and damages. She also impleaded Te as defedant for the reason that if Ladrido is going to be favored then the sale was to be annulled and plaintiff must be reimbursed. During the trial it was proven that during the cadastral survey in 1926, the two lots were separated by the Suague River and that a part of the land of Lot 7340 and the old river bed were in the possession of the defendants and that the plaintiffs have never been in actual physical possession.


CFI ruled in favor of the defendants which the CA confirmed. There was a mention in the case that the issue from which the decision of the CFI was not the issue appealed in the CA so the affirmation made by the CA should be void.


ISSUES:

1) Whether or not the change in the course of the Suague River was gradual or sudden
2) Whether or not the plaintiffs are protected by the Torrens System (in relation to the dimunition of the area of their land because the plaintiffs are contending that Art 457 must be interpreted as applicable only to unregistered lands)


RULING:

It was established in the trial that for a period of 40 years the Suague river overflowed its banks yearly and the property of the defendant gradually received deposits of soil from the effects of the current of the river.


It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian owner against the dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream or river. Accretions which the banks of the river may gradually receive from the effect of the current become the property of the owners of the banks.


BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

SUGGESTED ANSWERS …

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...

Read more

Oral Defamation l S…

Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation   Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood   Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander   A. Factor...

Read more

Article I – THE NAT…

Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...

Read more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

FRANCISCO VS. IAC- …

FRANCISCO V. IAC- Easement of WayAn owner cannot, as respondent has done, by his own act isolate his property from a public highway and then claim an easement of way through an adjacent estate. Isolation must not be due to his own acts.FACTS:Ramos' L...

Read more

EXCEPTIONS TO THE R…

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS MAY BE ENJOINED?1.    To  afford  adequate  protection  to  constitutional  rights  of  the accused 2.    When  necessary  for  the  orderly  administration  of  justice  or  to avoid oppression or mu...

Read more

VDA. DE AVILES v. C…

VDA. DE AVILES v. CAAn action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not be brought for the purpose of settling a boundary dispute.FACTS:Eduardo Aviles, the predecessor of the petitioners is the bother of defendant Camilo. They inherited their lands f...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Right to Strike

SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...

Read more

People vs. Tolentin…

G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...

Read more

Perfection Of A Con…

In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...

Read more


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook