ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47032 June 6, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE MIRANDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 222

  • G.R. Nos. 47038, 47039 & 47040 June 6 1941

    LUIS R. PIMENTEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 47260 June 6, 1941 - BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. EUGENIA M. SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 47454 June 6, 1941 - ADRIANO TRINIDAD v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI, ET AL.

    072 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 47317 June 10, 1941 - SISENANDO ABARRO v. TOMASA DE GUIA

    072 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 47519 June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO

    072 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 47549 June 10, 1941 - J. BENTON CLAUSEN v. ISABEL CABRERA

    072 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 47646 & 47657 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO BALTAZAR v. ANDRES LAYUG, ET AL.

    072 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 47684 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO A. MANEJA

    072 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 47686 June 10, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SANDIKO

    072 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 47689 June 10, 1941 - WILFRIDO MACEDA, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 47694 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 47756 June 10, 1941 - LUIS OCAMPO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 47762 June 10, 1941 - SILVERIO MORCO v. SALVADOR MUÑOZ

    072 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 47764 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO V. VILLARICA v. CONCEPCION MANIKIS

    072 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 47770 June 10, 1941 - SILVESTRE GALLANO v. PABLO S. RIVERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 47780 June 10, 1941 - CIRILO ALAFRIZ v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 47789 June 10, 1941 - FE CASTRO DE AGBAYANI v. JUSTICE OF PEACE OF THE CAPITAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 47816 June 10, 1941 - SABINO AGUILOS v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 47862 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. SINFOROSO TAGOC

    072 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 47863 June 10, 1941 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. JOSE VAÑO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 47892 June 10, 1941 - PABLO VALENZUELA v. VALERIO FLORES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 48027 June 10, 1941 - EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    072 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47421 June 13, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47734 June 13, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. CORNELIO PINEDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 47738 June 13, 1941 - ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47799 June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47965 June 13, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. MARIANO ABACAHIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 47072 June 17, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 47358 June 17, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 47432 June 17, 1941 - EUSTAQUIO FULE v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 47542 June 17, 1941 - LA FABRICA DE CERVEZA DE SAN MIGUEL v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    072 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47570 June 17, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE PAMPANGA v. ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO

    072 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47580 June 17, 1941 - SIMEON MANDAC v. COURT OF APPEALS

    072 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 47587 June 17, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. A. L. YATCO

    072 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 47660 June 17, 1941 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICENTE VERSOZA

    072 Phil 362

  • G.R. Nos. 47678 & 47679 June 17, 1941 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO, ET AL. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 47724 June 17, 1941 - HERMENEGILDO DEVEZA v. MANUEL RUIZ RUILOBA

    072 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 47745 June 17, 1941 - JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS v. MARIAÑO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 47771 June 17, 1941 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. GRACIANO DE LA RAMA

    072 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 47837 June 17, 1941 - SEGUNDO GARCIA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 47848 June 17, 1941 - BONIFACIO DANGALAN v. DOMINGO MARTICIO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 47889 June 17, 1941 - ANDRES JARDIN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA VILLAMAYOR

    072 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47972 June 17, 1941 - A. K. SPIELBERGER v. L. R. NIELSON

    072 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 47538 June 20, 1941 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. ARCO AMUSEMENT CO.

    072 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 47588 June 20, 1941 - JOSE L. LIWANAG v. TOLARAM MENGHRAJ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 47601 June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 47683 June 20, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. CONSOLACION M. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 47726 June 20, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL. v. VICTORINO DANGOY

    072 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 47797 June 20, 1941 - JOSEFA LABOT v. EDUVIGES LIBRADA

    072 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47819 June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 48100 June 20, 1941 - FLORENCIO PELOBELLO v. GREGORIO PALATINO

    072 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 46966 June 24, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE FILIPINAS v. CHUNG LIU & COMPANY

    072 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 47058 June 27, 1941 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL

    072 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 47189 June 27, 1941 - A. L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS

    072 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 47226 June 27, 1941 - PEDRO DE JESUS v. GUAN BEE CO.

    072 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 47338 June 27, 1941 - FRANCISCO EGMIDIO v. LEON REGALADO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 47354 June 27, 1941 - EL OPISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE NUEVA SEGOVIA v. EL MUNICIPIO DE SANTA CATALINA

    072 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47380 June 27, 1941 - ZACARIAS DE SADUESTE v. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

    072 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 47409 June 27, 1941 - ANGEL P. MIGUEL v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    072 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 47411 June 27, 1941 - J. A. WOLFSON v. MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE

    072 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 47465 June 27, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN

    072 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 47501 June 27, 1941 - FELIX B. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. GABRIEL LASAM, ET AL.

    072 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941 - IDONAH SLADE PERKINS v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 47641 June 27, 1941 - JOSEFA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. JUAN DE VERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 47701 June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 47731 June 27, 1940

    QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ

    072 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 47888 June 27, 1941 - MANUEL VILLARAMA vs.JUANITO MANLUSOC

    072 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47931 June 27, 1941 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. CALIXTO PILAPIL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. 47955 y 47993 June 27, 1941 - MARIANO B. ARROY, ET AL. v. ARSENIO DIZON

    072 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 47971 June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 48004 June 27, 1941 - CARLOS DORONILA v. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

    072 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 47179 June 28, 1941 - PHIL. ASS’N OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS v. M. JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 47269 June 28, 1941 - KUAN LOW & CO. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE ADUANAS

    072 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47424 June 28, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

    072 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 47586 June 28, 1941 - LIM BONFING, ET AL. v. TEODORICO RODRIGUEZ

    072 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 47966 June 28, 1941 - LOPE ATIENZA v. MAXIMINO CASTILLO

    072 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 47342 June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    073 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47446 June 30, 1941 - JOSE P. BANTUG v. MAMERTO ROXAS

    073 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 47637 June 30, 1941 - JOSE VISTAN v. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA

    073 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 47663 June 30, 1941 - JULIN GO v. EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    073 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 47768 June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941 - IN RE: EMILIANO GUZMAN

    073 Phil 51

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47819   June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA<br /><br />072 Phil 437

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 47819. June 20, 1941.]

    LEONARDO GUISON, recurrente, contra LA CIUDAD DE MANILA, recurrida.

    D. Salvador E. Imperial en representacion del recurrente.

    El Fiscal de la Ciudad Sr. Mabanag en representacion de la recurrida.

    SYLLABUS


    1. DERECHO DE ACCESION; ARTICULO 366 DEL CODIGO CIVIL; CASO DE AUTOS. — No tiene el articulo 366 del Codigo Civil aplicacion al caso de autos, porque el terreno en litigio no constituye ni puede constituir el acrecentamiento a que el mismo se refiere; en primer lugar, porque no se formo en la ribera de un rio, sino solamente en un canal de desague; en la ribera de un rio, sino solamente en un canal de desague; en segundo lugar, porque lo formaron, segun declaracion del Tribunal de Apelacion, "the garbage and waste material thrown into the channel and carried and dragged in by the current of the estero caused by the tide" ; en tercer lugar, porque el recurrente no ha contribuido en lo minimo a la formacion de dicho terreno; y finalmente, porque como dice el Tribunal con mucha razon, "the reason for the law giving the riparian owner the right to any land of alluvium deposited by a river is to compensate him for the loss he suffers because of flood and other damage due to the destructive force of water and because of the incumbrances and assessments imposed by the law on such riparian property. . . ."


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, M. :


    Esta causa es, en un sentido, una continuacion de un Expediente de Registro que, elevado en grado de apelacion por la recurrida como opositora en el mismo, desde el Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manila, al Tribunal de Apelacion (expediente de registro No. 635, Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manila; G. L. R. O. Record No. 52899), fue resuelto por dicho ultimo Tribunal en contra del recurrente que lo habia promovido. El Tribunal de Apelacion revoco la decision del Juzgado de Primera Instancia y declaro que el terreno cuya inscripcion en el Registro de la Propiedad habia sido solicitado por el recurrente, era parte del canal del estero de San Lazaro o del estero de Magdalena.

    Creyendo el recurrente que el Tribunal de Apelacion incurrio en error y abuso de su discrecion al resolver el Expediente en el sentido expresado, dejando de aplicar al caso alli tratado, las disposiciones del articulo 366 del Codigo Civil; y al revocar la decision del Juzgado de Primera Instancia que conocio originariamente de dicho Expediente, promovio el presente proceso, con el fin de que su decision sea objeto de una revision.

    Los hechos que el Tribunal de Apelacion declaro probados, se desprenden del siguiente pasaje de su decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "After a careful study of the evidence, we are convinced that the tract of land applied for, far from having been added thru accretion to the original parcel already registered in the name of Guison in 1914, is still part of the bed or channel of the estero in question. The preponderance of the evidence shown, and we may even take judicial notice of the fact, that the estero in question. The preponderance of the evidence shown, and we may even take judicial notice of the fact, that the esteros in the City of Manila are not streams or rivers having their sources in the mountains or in higher distant places, flowing into the sea, and having a regular and continuous current that are liable to deposit alluvium or sediment on their banks before they reach the sea, but rather they are canals or water passages used as drainage to receive and carry away the rain water from the streets of the City of Manila; that except after a heavy rain there is no current in these esteros and that the water they contain is stagnant except when affected by the flow of the tides from Manila Bay. The evidence further shows that oftentimes the people living on the edges or banks of these esteros, either from habit or because the garbage trucks do not reach their houses, throw or dump their garbage trucks do not reach their houses, throw or dump their garbage and other waste material into these esteros, thereby partially filling up the channel and making it necessary for the City of Manila to dig and clear these channels periodically in other that they may properly fulfill their function to drain the rain water from the City of streets. This facts is confirmed by the very finding of the trial court found on pages 17 and 20 of the Bill of Exceptions which read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Se ha probado por el solicitante que es dueño inscrito de un terreno urbano, mas particularmente descrito en el plano Exhibit D y en el decreto en el año 1914, confinaba con el estero de San Lazaro; que la ribera de este estero por el lado de dicho terreno ha estado creciendo paulatinamente, desde dicho años hasta hace poco, por efecto de la corriente de las aguas que arrastraba las basuras y materiales tirados al estero, en la extension deslindada por el plano Exhibito A.’

    ‘Las pruebas del solicitante fueron consistentes respecto al hecho de que desde el año 1918 hasta el año 1936, la ribera del estero de San Lazaro que confinaba con el terreno inscrito de dicho solicitante ha estado acreciendo paulatinamente por efecto de la corriente causada por el flujo y reflujo de las aguas del mar que arrastraban las basuras y los materiales tirados al estero, . . .’."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Pues ben; el articulo 366 del Codigo Civil invocado por el recurrente, contiene la siguiente disposicion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Pertenece a los dueños de las heredades confinantes con las riberas de los rios el acrecentamiento que aquellas reciben paulatinamente por efecto de la corriente de las aguas." (Art. 366 del Codigo Civil).

    Se vera que no tiene el referido articulo aplicacion al caso de autos, porque el terreno en litigio no constituye ni puede constituir el acrecentamiento a que el mismo se refiere; en primer lugar, porque no se formo en la ribera de un rio, sino solamente en un canal de desague; en segundo lugar, porque lo formaron, segun declaracion del Tribunal de Apelacion, "the garbage and waste material thrown into the channel and carried and dragged in by the current for the estero caused by the tide" ; en tercer lugar, porque el recurrente no ha contribuido en lo minimo a la formacion de dicho terreno; y finalmente, porque, como dice el Tribunal con mucha razon, "the reason for the law giving the riparian owner the right to any land or alluvium deposited by a river is to compensate him for the los he suffers because of flood and other damage due to the destructive force of water and because of the incumbrances and assessments imposed by the law on such riparian property. Here in the present case, however, the western boundary of the original parcel registered in the name of the applicant as shown by Exhibit D bordering on the estero in high protecting wall on which his house stands and is, therefore, subject to no incumbrances or easement. As already stated, the estero in question has no regular and continuous current that might damage or destroy said original parcel by its force. What happened in the present case is that the employees of the City of Manila or the City Prisoner employed for the purpose of cleaning and clearing the channel of estero, instead of removing all the rubbish and garbage and mud from the entire channel merely used to dig and clear a narrow passage in or around the middle of the estero, depositing what they removed therefrom to one side instead of taking it away entirely. This process clearly would not give the applicant a right or title to this mud, rubbish and garbage left and deposited in the estero itself however high it may be piled up and irrespective of the fact that the tides may or may not cover it."

    "Por las razones expuestas, y hallando como hallamos arreglado a derecho la decision del Tribunal de Apelacion, por la presente, la confirmamos en todas sus partes, confenando al recurrente al pago de las costas. Asi se ordera.

    Avanceña, Pres., Laurel, Moran y Horrilleno, MM., estan conformes.

    G.R. No. 47819   June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA<br /><br />072 Phil 437


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED