BAES V. COURT OF APPEALS
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
BAES V. COURT OF APPEALS
The rules on alluvion do not apply to man-made or artificial accretions nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros or artificial drainage systems. If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is effected through artificial means.
FACTS:
In 1962, the Government dug up a canal on a private estate in order to streamline the Tripa de Gallina creek (in other words, there was a mand-made change of river course). Said private estate was acquired by petitioner Baes, and was subdivided in to three lots. It was lot 2958-C which was totally occupied by the canal so the Government in exchange granted him a lot near but not contiguous to C. The old river bed was filled up by soil from Lot C. Petitioner now claims ownership over the old river bed on the basis of Article 461 which says that abandoned river beds belong to the riparian owners whose land is occupied by the new course of water.
ISSUE: Whether or not Article 461 applies
RULING: YES!
If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is effected through artificial means. The loss to the petitioners of the land covered by the canal was the result of a deliberate act on the part of the government when it sought to improve the flow of the Tripa de Gallina creek. It was therefore obligated to compensate the Baeses for their loss.
We find, however, that the petitioners have already been so compensated. Felix Baes was given Lot 3271-A in exchange for the affected Lot 2958-B through the Deed of Exchange of Real Property dated June 20, 1970. This was a fair exchange because the two lots were of the same area and value and the agreement was freely entered into by the parties.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BAES V. COURT OF APPEALS
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
BAES V. COURT OF APPEALS
The rules on alluvion do not apply to man-made or artificial accretions nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros or artificial drainage systems. If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is effected through artificial means.
FACTS:
In 1962, the Government dug up a canal on a private estate in order to streamline the Tripa de Gallina creek (in other words, there was a mand-made change of river course). Said private estate was acquired by petitioner Baes, and was subdivided in to three lots. It was lot 2958-C which was totally occupied by the canal so the Government in exchange granted him a lot near but not contiguous to C. The old river bed was filled up by soil from Lot C. Petitioner now claims ownership over the old river bed on the basis of Article 461 which says that abandoned river beds belong to the riparian owners whose land is occupied by the new course of water.
ISSUE: Whether or not Article 461 applies
RULING: YES!
If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is effected through artificial means. The loss to the petitioners of the land covered by the canal was the result of a deliberate act on the part of the government when it sought to improve the flow of the Tripa de Gallina creek. It was therefore obligated to compensate the Baeses for their loss.
We find, however, that the petitioners have already been so compensated. Felix Baes was given Lot 3271-A in exchange for the affected Lot 2958-B through the Deed of Exchange of Real Property dated June 20, 1970. This was a fair exchange because the two lots were of the same area and value and the agreement was freely entered into by the parties.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 6 days, 8 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
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 moreOral 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 moreArticle 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 moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
When the obligation…
When the obligation to ensure enjoyment of the use of the premises arise?The obligation of the lessor arises only when acts, termed as legal trespass (perturbacion de derecho), disturb, dispute, object to, or place difficulties in the way of the less...
Read moreRIGHT OF PLEDGOR …
RIGHT OF PLEDGOR TO DEMAND THE RETURN OF THE THING PLEDGEDArt. 2105. The debtor cannot ask for the return of the thing pledged against the will of the creditor, unless and until he has paid the debt and its interest, with expenses in a prope...
Read moreVILLANUEVA V VELASC…
VILLANUEVA VS. VELASCO- Legal EasementA legal easement is one mandated by law, constituted for public use or for private interest and becomes a continuing property right unless its removal is provided for in a title of conveyance or the sign of the e...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
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 morePeople 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 morePerfection 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