Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 249 views

    Narvasa vs. Imbornal

    Uploaded by

    Bernadette Racadio
    The owners of land adjacent to a river have a preferential right to own additions of land from accretion or alluvial deposits. In this case, the respondents owned land adjacent to the Cayanga River and were issued land titles for the first and second accretions that formed along the river bank adjacent to their land. The petitioners claimed ownership but did not own the land adjacent to the river and were unable to prove ownership through prescription or any other means. Therefore, the court ruled that the respondents had superior claim of ownership over the first and second accretions based on their adjacency to the river and land titles issued in their names.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Narvasa vs. Imbornal

    Uploaded by

    Bernadette Racadio
    249 views1 page
    The owners of land adjacent to a river have a preferential right to own additions of land from accretion or alluvial deposits. In this case, the respondents owned land adjacent to the Cayanga River and were issued land titles for the first and second accretions that formed along the river bank adjacent to their land. The petitioners claimed ownership but did not own the land adjacent to the river and were unable to prove ownership through prescription or any other means. Therefore, the court ruled that the respondents had superior claim of ownership over the first and second accretions based on their adjacency to the river and land titles issued in their names.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    NARVASA VS. IMBORNAL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The owners of land adjacent to a river have a preferential right to own additions of land from accretion or alluvial deposits. In this case, the respondents owned land adjacent to the Cayanga River and were issued land titles for the first and second accretions that formed along the river bank adjacent to their land. The petitioners claimed ownership but did not own the land adjacent to the river and were unable to prove ownership through prescription or any other means. Therefore, the court ruled that the respondents had superior claim of ownership over the first and second accretions based on their adjacency to the river and land titles issued in their names.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    249 views1 page

    Narvasa vs. Imbornal

    Uploaded by

    Bernadette Racadio
    The owners of land adjacent to a river have a preferential right to own additions of land from accretion or alluvial deposits. In this case, the respondents owned land adjacent to the Cayanga River and were issued land titles for the first and second accretions that formed along the river bank adjacent to their land. The petitioners claimed ownership but did not own the land adjacent to the river and were unable to prove ownership through prescription or any other means. Therefore, the court ruled that the respondents had superior claim of ownership over the first and second accretions based on their adjacency to the river and land titles issued in their names.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Right of Accession

    Racadio, Marie Bernadette M.

    NARVASA VS. IMBORNAL (2014)

    FACTS: Basilia Imbornal owned a parcel of land situated at Sabangan, Pangasinan which
    she conveyed to her 3 daughters, Balbina, Alejandra, and Catalina sometime in 1920.
    Meanwhile, Catalina’s husband, Ciriaco Abrio (Ciriaco), applied for and was granted a
    homestead patent over a 31,367-sq. m. riparian land (Motherland) adjacent to the
    Cayanga River in San Fabian, Pangasinan. Ciriaco and his heirs had since occupied the
    northern portion of the Motherland, while respondents occupied the southern portion.

    The First Accretion, adjoined the southern portion of the Motherland. OCT No. P-318 was
    issued in the name of respondent Victoriano married to Esperanza Narvarte, covering the
    First Accretion. The Second Accretion, abutted the First Accretion on its southern portion.
    OCT No. 21481 was issued in the names of all the respondents covering the Second
    Accretion.

    ISSUE: Who are the owners of the first and second accretions?

    Ruling: Being the owner of the land adjoining the foreshore area, respondent is the riparian
    or littoral owner who has preferential right to lease the foreshore area. Accordingly,
    therefore, alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek or a river do not form part of the
    public domain as the alluvial property automatically belongs to the owner of the estate to
    which it may have been added. The only restriction provided for by law is that the owner of
    the adjoining property must register the same under the Torrens system; otherwise, the
    alluvial property may be subject to acquisition through prescription by third persons.

    In this case, Francisco, et al. and, now, their heirs, herein petitioners are not the riparian
    owners of the Motherland to which the First Accretion had attached, hence, they cannot
    assert ownership over the First Accretion. Consequently, as the Second Accretion had
    merely attached to the First Accretion, they also have no right over the Second Accretion.
    Neither were they able to show that they acquired these properties through prescription as
    it was not established that they were in possession of any of them.

    Therefore, whether through accretion or, independently, through prescription, the


    discernible conclusion is that Francisco et al. and/or petitioners' claim of title over the First
    and Second Accretions had not been substantiated, and, as a result, said properties cannot
    be reconveyed in their favor. This is especially so since on the other end of the fray lie
    respondents armed with a certificate of title in their names covering the First and Second
    Accretions coupled with their possession thereof, both of which give rise to the superior
    credibility of their own claim.

    You might also like