3l\.epublit of tbe .f)bilippineg TIME :__ _____ .

~upreme (!Court
:fflanila

THIRD DIVISION

AQUILINO MANIGBAS, G.R. No. 222123

Petitioner,
Present:

- versus - LEONEN, J., Chairperson,

HERNANDO,
INTING, .
DELOS SANTOS, and
LOPEZ, J., JJ

MELO ABEL, FROILAN

YLAGAN, and DENNIS DE Promulgated:
GUZMAN,
Respondents. June 28, 20 2 1
x ------- ----- - - --- ------- ------------ ------ - - -------- -~\ ~ ~C~c..\\
------- --- - --- ------ ---- ---- - - - - ---x

DECISION

LOPEZ, J., J.:

Aquilino Manigbas (Manigbas) filed the instant"Petition for Review on

Certiorari 1 dated February 19, 2016, assailing the Court of Appeals Eleventh
Division's (Court ofAppeals) Decision2 dated June 25, 2015 and Resolution3
dated January 4, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 136655, both of which affirmed
the Office of the President's ( OP) Decision4 dated November 28, 2013 and
Resolution 5 dated July 8, 2014 in O.P. Case No. 09-1-463, in tum affirming
the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources'
(DENR) Decision6 dated March 11, 2008 and Order7 dated August 18, 2009

Rollo, pp. 20-24.

2
Penned by Associate Justice Fiorito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan

.,
Castillo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguil les, concurring; ro!lo, pp . 28 -40.
3
/d.at5l-5J.
4
/d.at115 - il7.
5
Id. at 124-125.
6
id. at 91-96.
7
Id. at 97-100.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 222123

in DENR Case No. 8304, which reversed the DENR-MIMAROPA Regional

Executive Director's Order8 dated November 6, 2006.

Factual and Procedural Antecedents

Manigbas' Property Vis-A-Vis

The Provincial Road And The
Land Accreted From The San
Agustin River

Manigbas is the registered owner of Lot 2070-K, covered by Transfer

Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-179 (T-52092), located in Barangay San
Agustin I, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. 9 The eastern portion of Lot 2070-K
serves as a barangay road, supposedly constructed pursuant to the Provincial
Government of Oriental Mindoro's power of eminent domain, although
Manigbas has not received just compensation therefor. 10 A Certification
dated March 21, 2006, from the Municipality of Naujan's Office of the
Municipal Treasurer, indicates that Manigbas regularly paid the realty taxes
on Lot 2070-K, including the portion serving as barangay road, from 1980
to 2006. 11 Adjoining the barangay road is 0.3112 hectares of land accreted
from the San Agustin River (accreted lot), 12 the subject of the instant
controversy.

Proceedings Before The

DENR-MIMAROPA

On June 10, 2005, as a first step to validate his ownership claim over
the accreted lot, Manigbas requested the DENR-MIMAROPA for a survey
authority, for which Survey Authority No. 045208-116 dated July 21, 2005
(Survey Authority) was issued. 13 Accordingly, Proposed Survey Plan No. F-
045208-675 (Proposed Survey Plan) was drawn up for the accreted lot, to
which Manigbas later on filed Free Patent Application No. 045208-675
(FPA). 14 Melo Abel (Abel), Froilan Ylagan, and Dennis de Guzman
(collectively, respondents) filed unverified protests before the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office, raising irregularities in the
conduct of the survey, and pointing out that the accreted lot is subject to
easement restrictions. 15

8 Id. at 72-76.
9 Id. at 54.
10
Id. at 56.
II Id. at 57.
12
Id. at 55.
13 Id. at 72.
14
Id. at 55.
15 Id. at 29.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 222123

Pursuant to the Survey Authority, Engineer II Jocelyn Sarile submitted

an Investigation Report to the DENR-MIMAROPA, detailing that: (1)
Manigbas is the registered owner of Lot 2070-K, over the entirety of which
Manigbas has paid realty taxes; (2) a portion of Lot 2070-K serves as a
barangay road for which the Provincial Government of Oriental Mindoro
had not paid just compensation; (3) Manigbas is the riparian owner; and (4)
over the accreted lot are structures erected by Manigbas and the respondents,
as well as a barangay hall. The Investigation Report recommended that: the
FPA be amended to indicate a twenty (20) meter strip of legal easement in
the portion where the accreted land meets the San Agustin River; and that
the manner of application under the FPA be amended to refer to lands
disposable by sale or lease. 16

Those findings notwithstanding, DENR-MIMAROPA's Officer-in-

Charge Regional Technical Director ( OIC-RTD) Lydia Lopez issued an
Order dated May 30, 2006, sustaining respondents' protests, finding that the
accreted lot is subject to legal easements and can only be acquired by lea~e,
recommending that the survey plan be dropped and the FPA cancelled, and
directing respondents to file their respective claims over the accreted lot. 17
Manigbas filed a Motion for Reconsideration 18 dated July 4, 2006 and
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration19 dated August 24, 2006, arguing
that the OIC-RTD erred in issuing the Order dated May 30, 2006, as she
went beyond the issues of the Survey Authority, ruled contrary to established
facts and law, and that respondents had no interest to_ file their protests.

DENR-MIMAROPA Regional Executive Director Vicente Paragas

sustained Manigbas in his Order2° dated November 6, 2006, disposing:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Order dated May

30, 2006 is set aside. The Respondent is hereby directed to follow-up the
approval of the survey plan by virtue of Survey Authority No. 045 208-116
and consequently file the appropriate land registration proceedings in court.

SO ORDERED. 21

The DENR-MIMAROPA Regional Executive Director found that: (1)

the OIC-RTD had acted with grave abuse of discretion; (2) the Survey
Authority was carried out properly; (3) Manigbas was the riparian owner- of
the accreted lot; and (4) the FPA was properly cancelled, considering that the
accreted lot is not land of the public domain, hen~e, beyond the DENR's
authority to dispose.

16 Id. at 55-56.
17
Id. at 58.
18 - Id. at 59-66.
19 Id. at 67-71.
20 Id. at 72-76.
21
Id. at 76.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 222123

Proceedings Before The

Office of the DENR Secretary

Respondents filed before the Office of the DENR Secretary a Notice

of Appeal dated January 17, 2007, docketed as DENR Case No. 8304, for
which an Order22 dated January 19, 2007 was issued, requiring the parties to
submit their memoranda and proposed draft decisions, and ordering the
DENR-MIMAROPA to transmit the complete case records. Manigbas filed a
Motion to Dismiss23 dated February 12, 2007, arguing that: (1) he was not
furnished a copy of the Notice of Appeal dated January 17, 2007; (2) the
reglementary period for appeal had already lapsed; and (3) the Order dated
November 6, 2006 had attained finality. Respondents countered with a
Petitioner Request dated July 11, 2007, moving for the denial of Manigbas'
Motion to Dismiss dated February 12, 2007, 24 and attaching a Petition for
Relief25 dated February 14, 2007, where respondents argued that the Order
dated November 6, 2006 was issued through mistake, fraud, and
misappreciation of the facts.

The DENR Secretary rendered a Decision dated March 11, 2008, the
dispositive of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the assailed decision is

hereby ordered SET ASIDE. The Regional Office is hereby directed to
determine the actual occupation and possession of the parties and resolve
the controversy in accordance thereof.

SO ORDERED. 26

While conceding that the accreted lot adjoined Lot 2070-K, the DENR
Secretary ruled that Manigbas could not be the riparian owner, since the
accreted lot adjoined the barangay road portion of Lot 2070-K. Moreover,
Manigbas had not established the requisites of accretion. Despite Manigbas
moving for reconsideration, the Office of the DENR Secretary sustained the
Decision dated March 11, 2008 in its Order27 dated August 18, 2009.

Proceedings Before the OP

Manigbas filed a Petition for Review 28 dated September 14, 2009

before the OP, docketed as OP Case No. 09-I-463, arguing that the Office of

22 Id. at 77-78.
23 Id. at 79-82.
24 Id. at 83-84.
25 Id. at 85-90.
26 Id. at 95-96.
27 Id. at 99-100.
28 Id. at 101-111.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 222123

the DENR Secretary gravely abused its discretion by giving due course to
the Notice of Appeal dated January 17, 2007, despite lapse of the
reglementaf appeal period; and ~y setting aside the Order dated November
6, 2006. Re~pondent Abel filed his Comments and/or Opposition to Petition
29
for Reviewr asking that the OP dismiss the Petition for Review dated
September t4, 2009, since Manigbas failed to raise new issues or evidence
and had twisted the facts of the case. '

Ruling against Manigbas, the OP rendered a Decision dated

November :s, 2013, the dispositive of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Appeal is

hereby DISMISSED for lack of !Jlerit. .

SO ORDERED. 30

The OP ruled that administrative procedure could be construed

liberally, an<ll sustained the DENR Secretary's findings that Manigbas could
not be a ri~arian owner as the accreted lot adjoined the barangay road
portion ofLpt No. 2070-K. While Manigbas moved for reconsideration, the
OP sustained its Decision dated November 28, 2013 in a Resolution31 dated
July 8, 2014 I

Proceedings Before The Court

ofAppeals

Unfaz d, Manigbas filed a Petition for Review 32 dated August 26,

20~4 before fhe Court o~ Appeal~, docketed as CA-~R. SP No. 13665?, to
which respondents submitted their Comments.33 Manigbas countered with a
Reply to Coinment34 dated December 27, 2014, against which respondents
submitted tHeir Rejoinder 35 dated January 15, 2015. Briefly, Manigbas
1

argued that: (1) the OP erred in dismissing his Petition for Review dated
September 14, 2009; (2) the Investigation Report should have been given
more weight than respondents' unverified protests; (3) the Office of the
DENR Secretary and the OP erred in directing the DENR-l\1IMAROPA to
determine the actual possession and occupation of the parties, despite
respondents not claiming the accreted lot; (4) he is the riparian owner; (5)
respondents, as well as the DENR Secretary and OP, committed procedural
lapses; and ( 6) respondents had leveraged their previous work with the
DENR National Mapping Resource and Information Office to influence the
29
Id. at 112-114.
30
Id. at 117.
31
Id. at 124-125.
32
Id. at 126-142.
33
Id. at 143-147.
34 Id. at 148-151.
35
Id. at 152-153. -~
Decision 8 G.R. No. 222123

the DENR-MIMAROPA for a survey authority, and for which the

Investigation Report was issued and the Proposed Survey Plan drawn up.

However, for a riparian owner to definitively validate ownership over

the accreted land, the registration thereof is a subsequent step entirely
distinct from alluvion itself. The Court, in Grande v. Court of Appeals, 46
summarized the distinctions:

x x x The question is whether the accretion becomes automatically

registered land just because the lot which receives it is covered by a Torrens
title thereby making the alluvial property im.prescriptible. We agree with the
Court of Appeals that it does not, just as an unregistered land purchased by
the registered owner of the adjoining land does not, by extension, become
ipso facto registered land. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and
registration under the Torrens system. of that ownership is quite another.
Ownership over the accretion received by the land adjoining a river is
governed by the Civil Code. Im.prescriptibility of registered land is provided
in the registration law. Registration under the Land Registration and
Cadastral Acts does not vest or give title to the land, 'but merely confirms
and thereafter protects the title already possessed by the owner, making it
im.prescriptible by occupation of third parties. But to obtain this protection,
the land must be placed under the operation of the registration laws wherein
certain judicial procedures have been provided. x x x

Thus, since title to accreted land vests from the time the alluvial
deposit is formed, then the land registration proceedings thereon are
effectively a request for confirmation of title already vested in the riparian
owner by law. 47 The land registration court cannot confer to the riparian
owner the ownership over what is already his. Land registration proceedings
seek only to judicially declare the riparian owner as such over the accreted
land.48

Accordingly, lest this ruling be misunderstood, the Court makes no

explicit pronouncement on whether or not Manigbas is the riparian owner of
the accreted lot. Such is a question properly addressed to the land
registration court. Thus, the DENR-MIMAROPA Regional Executive
Director, in his Order dated November 6, 2006, correctly directed the
completion of the Proposed Survey Plan, in order that Manigbas may file the
necessary land registration proceedings to judicially confirm his ownership
over the accreted lot. In the same vein, the DENR Secretary inaccurately
counted against Manigbas his supposed failure to establish the requisites of

The survey of these lands shall proceed only after an investigation shall have been
conducted by the CENRO and after it has been ascertained that the survey claimant or his
predecessor-in-interest has been in continuous, open, exclusive, notorious possession of the
land since time immemorial.
The findings of the CENRO shall form part of the supporting documents of the survey
returns to be submitted to the Regional Office for approval."
,t6 115 Phil. 521, 521-522 (1962). (Underscoring supplied).
47 Fernandez.-: Tanada, 148-A Phil. 596, 600 (1971).
48
Id
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 222123

accretion. ·Indeed, the instant controversy is neither the. time nor the avenue
for such issues. ·

·The foregoing discussion is consistent with the principle that alluvial

deposits . do: not form part of the public domain as the .alluvial property
automatically belongs to the owner of the estate to which it is added. 49
:Acco~dingly, no free patent application is necessary for the riparian· owner to
lay claim over the accreted land, and any such disposition granted by the
pertinent authorities would be beyond their jurisdiction, hence, null and
50
void. Thus, Manigbas' FPA was properly cancelled, but not because
·Manigbas has no ostensible right over the accreted lot, but, really, because
there was no need therefor.

Still, Presidential Decree No. 1067, otherwise known as "The Water

Code of the Philippines", being the basic law that governs the rights to land.
related to water resources, 51 provides a legal easement over properties like
the accreted lot next to the San Agustin River. Article 51 thereof provides:

ARTICLE 51. The banks of rivers and streams.and the shores of the
seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3)
meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (4~)
meters in forest areas, along their margins, are subject to the easement of
public ·use in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and
salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is
necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing oi- salvage or to build
structures of any kind.

This legal easement is a limitation on the right of ownership and

possession, 52 meant to preserve the public's interest of recreation, navigation,
floatage, fishing and salvage, as well as to curb the construction of illegal
structures and abate pollution. 53

It was for purposes of reflecting such legal easement, and to carry out
the then applicable DENR AO No. 98-12, 54 that the Investigation Report
49
Office ofthe City Mayor ofParanaque City v. Ebio, 635 Phil. 528,537 (2010).
5
°
51
Ferrer v. Bautista, supra note 42.
Article2.c.
52
Pilar Development Corp. v. Dumadag, 706 Phil. 93, 102 (2013). _
53
. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents ofManila Bay, 595 Phil. 305,
344 (2008). _ _ .
54
DENR AO No. 98-12, Series of 1998, "Revised Manual of Land Surveymg Regulations m the
Philippines", Sections 323-325:
"Section 323 - For the purpose of recreation, navigation, fioatage, fishing and salvage, the
banks of esteros, arroyos, creeks and rivers throughout their entire lengths, situated in
urban areas, agricultural areas, and forested areas shall be subject to the three meter,
twenty-meter, and forty-meter easement of public use, respectively. The shorelines of seas
and lakes, throughout their entire lengths are subject to twenty-meter easement pursuant to
· P.D. 705.
Section 324 - Lands bordering the seas, gulfs, bays, or ports are subject to easements of
salvage zone of twenty meters measured landward from the interior limit of the shoreline Cl
and an easement of coast police of six meters wide from the shoreline within the salvage y
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 222123

properly recommended the amendment of Manigbas' survey application.

Consequently, should Manigbas successfully secure a judicial ·confirmation
as riparian owner over the ·accreted lot, he would not be able to lay claim
over the entirety of it, as the length thereof along the San Agustin River,
within a zone of twenty (20) meters, is subject to the easement of puhlic use
in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage.

The Proposed Survey Plan

Should Be Issued To Manigbas

Against the above backdrop, the Court of Appeals exceeded the issues
of the controversy and erred in ruling that it "cannot adjudicate the subject
lot in favor of' Manigbas, considering that the accreted lot adjoins a portion
of Lot 2070-K used as a barangay road, hence, the Provincial Government
of Oriental Mindoro was the rightful riparian owner. Such ruling is
premature since, to reiterate, the issue in the instant controversy is whether
or not the Proposed Survey Plan may be withheld from Manigbas on
allegations that the accreted lot adjoins the barangay road. Only thereafter
may the decisive issue of riparian ownership be threshed out in the
appropriate land registration proceedings.

Granted, the proceedings below could have more informedly taken

course had the Provincial Government of Oriental Mindoro participated and
presented evidence on the status o_f its expropriation of the barangay road.
Yet, what remains unrebutted on record is that the Provincial Government of
Oriental Mindoro had converted the portion of Lot 2070-K into a barangay
road, without justly compensating Manigbas therefor.

A local government unit's statutory power of eminent domain 55 is

Constitutionally limited in that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation." 56 As to when title to property subject
to expropriation is transferred, the Court, in the En Banc decision of
Republic v. Judge Gingoyon, 57 reiterated in Republic v. Limbonhai and
Sons, 58 pronounced: "Clearly, without full payment of just compensation,
there can be no transfer of title from the landowner to the expropriator.

zone. The eas.ement of coast police is the obligation to leave a right of way six meters wide
within the salvage zone.
Section 325 - In surveying lands which border esteros, rivers, navigable lakes, the sea or its
arms, the geodetic engineer shall locate on the ground and indicate in the field notes and
plans of the survey the easements for public use as defined in the preceding Sections 323
and 324 except when they are within the strip of forty meters for bank protection which is
excluded from the survey as provided for in Sections 309 to 312.
In subdividing decreed or titled properties, these easement and river ban.le protections shall
be surveyed as separate lot and is inalienable."
55
Republic Act No. 7160, "Local Government Code of 1991", Section 19.
56
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 9.
57
514 Phil. 657, 706 (2005). (Underscoring ours).
58
· 800 Phil. 163, 174 (2016).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 222123

Otherwise stated, the Republic's acqmsrb.on of ownership is conditioned

upon the full payment of just compensation within a reasonable time." 59 The
foregoing were _amplified in San Roque Realty and.Development Corp. v.
Republic,60 whe_re the Court emphasized "that no piece of land can be finally
and irrevocably taken from an unwilling · owner until compensation is
paid[,]" 61 and that the failure to pay just compensation "renders the taking
ineffectual" and precludes the perfection of title over the subject property. 62

Since- the Provincial Government of Oriental Mindoro had not

completed just compensation to Manigbas for the barangay road, title
thereon had not transferred to the former, but remained with the latter. For
purposes of completing the Proposed Survey Plan, indicating therein that the
accreted lot be appended to Lot 2070-K, the same could very well issue to
Manigbas, subject to legal easement along the banks of the San Agustin
River. Also, no further complication was levied against the conduct of the ·
survey authority, hence, the Proposed Survey Plan could issue in due course.
Thereafter, as aptly ruled by the DENR-MIMAROPA Regional Executive
Director in his Order dated November 6, 2006, Manigbas could initiate the
land registration proceedings to definitively settle the question of accretion.

To rule as the Court of Appeals did will unduly augment the power of
expropriation, already considered "one of the harshest proceedings" for
which "the authority to condemn is to be strictly construed in favor of the
owner and against the condemnor." 63 First, such ruling would expand the .
coverage of the taking since the Provincial Government of Oriental Mindoro
sought to expropriate only a portion of Lot 2070-K for a barangay road, yet,
it would also be entitled to the accreted lot, for which it had not established
riparian ownership, much less instituted further expropriation proceedings.
Second, as against the principle that title to accreted land vests from the time
the alluvial deposit is formed, the Court of Appeals' ruling discards the
conditional obligation of full payment of just compensation prior to the
condemnor's acquisition of ownership. Finally, such ruling would institute a
de facto regime of expropriation wherein the fact of occupation and public
use, without strictly completing the expropriation process, already vests
ownership in the government.

Citing Alfonso v. City of Pasa-y, 64 the Court of Appeals held that

Manigbas' remaining remedy was to demand just compensation for the
barangay road. However, such pronouncement must be confined to the facts
of said case. Therein landowner s9ught to recover possession over property
for which the city had not justly compensated him, but the Court held thg.t ·

59 Underscoring supplied.
60 559 Phil. 264 (2007). .
61 Jd. at 275, citing Vzsayan RefzningCo. v. Judge Camits, 40 Phil. 550, 561 (J 919).
62 Id. (Undersc-oring supplied).
63 Jesus is Lord Christian School Fov,ndation, Inc. v. Municipality of Pasig, 503 Phil. 845, 862
(2005).
64 106 Phil. 1017 (1960).
Decision 12 G.R. No. 222123

"restoration of possession by the City of Pasay is neither convenient nor

feasible because it is now and has been . used for road purposes." 65
Meanwhile, the instant controversy concerns accretion over the alluvial
deposits flanked by the barangay road on the west and the San Agustin
River on the east, not the right of possession over the barangay road. There
exists no inconvenience nor impracticality so as to preclude Manigbas'
prospective declaration of ownership over the accreted lot. At most, there
would only result a pecuJiar configuration wherein, upon completing just
compensation, the Provincial Government of Oriental Mindoro's OW!'lership
over the· barangay road would be wedged between Manigbas' ownership
over the remaining portion of Lot 2070-K and the accreted lot.

Surely, t\}e Provincial Government of Oriental Mindoro is not

prevented from vying for riparian ownership over the accreted lot if, in the
appropriate land registration proceedings, it can establish complete payment
of just compensation over the barangay road prior to the accretion of alluvial
deposits. But, again, the instant controversy only concerns the issuance of
the Proposed Survey Plan for the subsequent purpose of land registration
proceedings in which riparian ownership over the accreted lot would be
judicially declared.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated

February 19, 2016 is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Eleventh
Division's Decision dated June 25, 2015 and Resolution dated January 4,
2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 136655 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Department of Environment and Natural Resources-MIMAROPA is
DIRECTED to GIVE DUE COURSE to and ISSUE Proposed Survey
Plan No. F-045208-675 in favor of Aquilino Manigbas, subject to the
twenty (20) meter zone for easement of recreation, navigation, floatage,
fishing and salv.age along the banks of the San Agustin River. Thereafter,
Aquilino Manigbas may file the necessary land registration proceedings in
order to judicially confirm riparian ownership over the accreted lot.

SO ORDERED.

JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice

65 Id. at 1022.
 Decision 13 G.R. No. 222123,

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice

~
HENRI~B. INTIN~
Associate Justice

EDGARro:.:ELOSSANTOS
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, a..11.d the Third
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.