Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > April 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 31408 April 22, 1991 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 31408. April 22, 1991.]

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and BORROMEO BROS. ESTATE, INC., Respondents.

Feliberto Leonardo and Benjamin S. Rallon for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; ARTICLE 457, CIVIL CODE; ACCRETION; DISPUTED LAND WAS FORMED THROUGH THE ACTION OF RIVER CURRENTS, NOT BY ACTION OF THE SEA, HENCE, BELONGS TO THE RIPARIAN OWNER. —

2. REMEDIAL LAW; PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS; WHEN PLEADINGS ARE AMENDED, THE ORIGINAL PLEADINGS LOSE THEIR STATUS AS PLEADINGS AND CEASE TO BE JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS; THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED AS EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS ONLY IF OFFERED OR RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE. — When pleadings are amended, the original pleadings disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial admissions. While they may nonetheless be utilized against the pleader as extra-judicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in evidence. In the case at bar, it does not appear that the original application for registration containing the averment in question, or that particular averment itself, was offered or received in evidence for the petitioner in the Trial Court.


D E C I S I O N


NARVASA, J.:


Whether the land in dispute was formed by the action of the sea or by deposits of soil and sedimentary matter carried by river currents is the main issue in this case, which was elevated to the Court by petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals. 1

In October 1956 the corporation R. Borromeo Bros. Estate, Inc. instituted in the Court of First Instance of Leyte original proceedings 2 for confirmation and registration of title in its favor of a parcel of land fronting the sea in the coastal town of San Isidro, Leyte with an area of 130,537 square meters. The application 3 alleged that the land was bounded on the North, East and South by property of the applicant and on the West by San Isidro Bay; that it had been formed by accretion of sediments carried from the highlands by the natural action of the Si-ong and Sinubdan Rivers when these overflowed their banks during the rainy season; 4 that it had been publicly, openly, continuously and adversely possessed by the applicant for 20 years prior to the filing of the application; and that to the applicant’s knowledge there existed no mortgage, lien or other adverse claim on the land. 5

Two oppositions to the application were filed. One, filed by the Director of Lands, asserted that the land applied for was part of the public domain, and that the applicant or its predecessors-in-interest had no sufficient title to the land, by way of either composition of possessory information, or by virtue of open, public, adverse and continuous possession under claim of ownership since July 26, 1894. 6

The other opposition, filed by the Municipality of San Isidro, echoed the contention of the Director of Lands that the land formed part of the public domain, alleging that it was classified as Timber Block-J, Leyte Project No. 40; denied the applicant’s claim of open, adverse, continuous and exclusive possession and averred that the land was occupied by other parties who had waived their claims in favor of said oppositor; and alleged, further, that it (oppositor) needed the land for municipal expansion, having in fact adopted resolutions requesting the Government to reserve the land for that purpose, and that the applicant had applied for, but had been denied, a lease of the land after it had been released for private occupation by the Bureau of Forestry. 7

The case was then heard. It would appear that after the applicant had presented its evidence, it sought and was allowed to amend its application, which originally alleged that the land applied for had been formed of alluvium deposited by the action of the sea, 8 in order to allege, as said appellant’s evidence had tended to establish, that said land had been formed instead from accretions of soil and sediment carried from higher places by the currents of the Si-ong and Sinubdan Creeks.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Thereafter, evidence for the oppositors also having been presented, the Trial Court rendered judgment denying the application and declaring the land applied for public land formed by the action of the sea and not of any river. 9 The applicant then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the Trial Court, sustained the applicant’s contention as to the origin of the land, on that basis declared the land to be private land of said applicant and decreed its registration in the applicant’s name. 10

The Appellate Court’s judgment was in turn appealed to this Court by the Director of Lands who, in the main, argues that the Appellate Court erred in concluding that the evidence showed the land to have been formed by the action of rivers and in not holding the applicant bound by the averment in its original application that the land was formed by the natural action of the sea. 11

The first assignment of error may be disposed of by the simple expedient of pointing out that the assailed "conclusion" of the Court of Appeals is one of fact, not of law, and is, therefore, beyond the province of this Court to review, 12 save in certain exceptional circumstances. 13

To dispel any doubts, however, and not to rely solely on what might appear to some to be a fine distinction, particularly considering that the finding of the Court of Appeals on the crucial factual question of how the land in dispute came into existence conflicts with that of the Trial Court, this Court has reviewed the available record 14 and finds no sound basis for ascribing any error to the Appellate Court in its appreciation of the evidence.

The petitioner’s case is anchored on evidence tending to establish that the Sinubdan and Si-ong Rivers whose currents, according to the private respondent, formed the land in question from the sediments they carried were not natural streams, but mere canals dug as part of an irrigation system; that they had no intrinsic water sources and in fact dried up during the summer season; that a survey commissioned by the petitioner itself in 1949 did not indicate their existence on the plan; and that part of the land is swampy with mangrove trees growing thereon. 15

More persuasive, however, is the countervailing evidence of the private respondent which consists, principally, of the testimony of Felix Sablado, a bridge foreman of the Bureau of Public Highways, and Teofilo Pacana, overseer of the petitioner’s lands. According to the petitioner’s uncontradicted summary of Sablado’s testimony, said witness had undertaken studies of the Sinubdan and Si-ong Rivers, measuring their depth and width, the volume of water that they carried, and the size of the bridges spanning them. He had declared the Si-ong was more than seven meters deep, while the Sinubdan had a depth of more than three meters, that the Filemon Bridge crossing the Si-ong was seven meters long and four meters wide and the Sinubdan Bridge had the same dimensions. And under cross-examination, he had maintained that there is a source of water under the Filemon Bridge. 16 Pacana, for his part, testified that there is a continuous flow of water in both rivers throughout the year, and not merely during the rainy season, as claimed by one of the oppositors’ witnesses, and that while a few mangrove trees grow in the salvage zone which is far from the land, none are found within the boundaries of the land itself. 17 This is at least partly confirmed by photographs received in evidence 18 showing rice, coconut trees and bamboo groves growing on the land, and which apparently persuaded the Trial Court that at least a part of the land had been." . . transformed (through cultivation by the private respondent) into a veritable first class rice land." 19

The petitioner’s argument that accretion, by definition imperceptible, could hardly account for such an area of land (more than thirteen hectares) being built up within a period of six years, hinges upon an unwarrantedly literal advertence to the testimony of one of the private respondent’s witnesses who declared that the process took place from 1930 to 1936. 20 Assuming that the witness attested to what he sincerely believed to be the truth, the possibility of his being mistaken cannot be discounted because, the age of the rivers in question never having been established, the process of accretion through the action of their currents could have started much earlier than 1930. It is also entirely possible — and reasonably presumable, lacking any proof to the contrary — even granting that accretion started only in 1930, for the land to have grown to thirteen hectares in the twenty years that followed until 1956 when the application for registration was filed.chanrobles law library : red

The Court therefore finds no error in the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the land was formed by accretion through the action of river currents and belonged to the private respondent as riparian owner pursuant to Art. 457 of the Civil Code.

The Court of Appeals also correctly overruled the petitioner’s contention that the averment in the original application for registration attributing the origin of the land to the action of the sea, which averment, with leave of court, was later superseded by an amendment to the effect that the land was formed by the action of rivers, was binding on the private respondent as a judicial admission. Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial admissions. While they may nonetheless be utilized against the pleader as extra-judicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in evidence. 21 It does not appear that the original application for registration containing the averment in question, or that particular averment itself, was offered or received in evidence for the petitioner in the Trial Court.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals subject of the petition for review is AFFIRMED, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. in CA-G.R. No. 26867-R.

2. Case No. N-0-11, LRC Rec. No. N-7998.

3. as later amended.

4. The application originally averred that the land applied for had been formed through alluvium by action of the sea (Record on Appeal, p. 20, rollo, p. 45).

5. Record on Appeal, pp. 1-7; Rollo, p. 45.

6. Record on Appeal, pp. 8-9; Rollo, p. 45.

7. Record on Appeal, pp. 10-16; Rollo, p. 45.

8. Trial Court’s decision; record on appeal, p. 20; Rollo, p. 45.

9. Id., pp. 17-24.

10. Rollo, pp. 36-42.

11. Rollo, p. 26.

12. Rule 45, sec. 2 (second paragraph), Rules of Court.

13. See Tolentino v. De Jesus, 56 SCRA 167; Cesar v. Sandiganbayan, 134 SCRA 105, 121-122; and People v. Traya, 147 SCRA 381, 388, for enumeration of those circumstances and citation of supporting authorities.

14. See Rollo, pp. 122-123.

15. Rollo, pp. 30-33, 38-40.

16. See record on appeal, pp. 30-31, Rollo, p. 44, where private respondent summarizes Sablado’s testimony in its motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Trial Court.

17. Id., at pp. 32-33.

18. Referred to as Exhibits P and P-l by the petitioner in the same motion for reconsideration, supra; record on appeal, p. 33, Rollo, p. 44.

19. Record on Appeal, p. 19; Rollo, p. 44.

20. Rollo, p. 28.

21. Bastida v. Menzi & Co., 58 Phil. 188, 222, citing Jones on Evidence, sec. 273 and Lucido v. Calupitan, 27 Phil. 148; see also Francisco’s Revised Rules of Court, 1973 ed., Vol. VII, pp. 93-94.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 74854 April 2, 1991 - JESUS DACOYCOY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75504 April 2, 1991 - VICENTE CU v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79981 April 2, 1991 - ENGRACIA BACATE AMBERTI v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-238 April 8, 1991 - GENEROSO V. MIRASOL v. JOSE O. DE LA TORRE, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-89-348 April 8, 1991 - ESTELITA PADRONES v. MELCHOR DIVINAGRACIA

  • G.R. No. 49470 April 8, 1991 - DARIO N. LOZANO v. IGNACIO BALLESTEROS

  • G.R. No. 52179 April 8, 1991 - MUN. OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION v. ROMEO N. FIRME

  • G.R. No. 55109 April 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO M. AUSTRIA

  • G.R. No. 73647 April 8, 1991 - JOSE G. BUSMENTE, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83959 April 8, 1991 - RUPERTO DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 87416 April 8, 1991 - CECILIO S. DE VILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89745 April 8, 1991 - RUFINO O. ESLAO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 90580 April 8, 1991 - RUBEN SAW v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90596 April 8, 1991 - SOLID MANILA CORPORATION v. BIO HONG TRADING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 90-11-2709-RTC April 16, 1991 - MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD v. RODOLFO P. TORRELLA

  • G.R. No. 85718 April 16, 1991 - FEDERICO CARANDANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 87119 April 16, 1991 - GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88589 April 16, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO D. LINSANGAN

  • G.R. No. 91259 April 16, 1991 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. RENATO A. FUENTES

  • G.R. No. 91925 April 16, 1991 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR. v. ANTONIO J. ROXAS

  • A.M. No. P-89-327 April 19, 1991 - THELMA GARCIA v. ROMEO EULLARAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-570 April 19, 1991 - ANTONIO SOYANGCO v. ROMEO G. MAGLALANG

  • A.C. No. 2152 April 19, 1991 - TEODORO I. CHAVEZ v. ESCOLASTICO R. VIOLA

  • A.C. No. 2697 April 19, 1991 - JOSE S. SANTOS v. CIPRIANO A. TAN

  • A.C. No. 2731 April 19, 1991 - GLORIA DELA ROSA OBIA v. BASILIO M. CATIMBANG

  • G.R. No. 73610 April 19, 1991 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78162 April 19, 1991 - J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO v. ROMEO G. MAGLALANG

  • G.R. Nos. 85939 & 86968 April 19, 1991 - NEW PANGASINAN REVIEW, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92299 April 19, 1991 - REYNALDO R. SAN JUAN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95861 April 19, 1991 - FRANCISCO L. ABALOS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991 - MIGUEL P. PADERANGA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 31408 April 22, 1991 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42725 April 22, 1991 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 45125 April 22, 1991 - LORETA SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50501 April 22, 1991 - RODOLFO GUIANG v. RICARDO C. SAMANO

  • G.R. No. 74783 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO B. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 75389 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO B. MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. 75894 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TUGBO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 76562 April 22, 1991 - ROGER B. PATRICIO v. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO

  • G.R. No. 76953 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO MANDAPAT

  • G.R. No. 77315 April 22, 1991 - CIRCLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80767 April 22, 1991 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82985 April 22, 1991 - MERVILLE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ

  • G.R. No. 85647 April 22, 1991 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92570 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EVANGELINE NUNAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93666 April 22, 1991 - GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. RUBEN D. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 94571 April 22, 1991 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. v. GUILLERMO CARAGUE

  • G.R. No. 94925 April 22, 1991 - BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94951 April 22, 1991 - APEX MINING COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95011 April 22, 1991 - MY SAN BISCUITS INC. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 78254 April 25, 1991 - JOINT MOH-MOLE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 78556 April 25, 1991 - ALFARO FORTUNADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83354 April 25, 1991 - LEON MATEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90296 April 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES M. INDAYA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-466 April 26, 1991 - DOMINGA AZOR v. SOFRONIO G. SAYO

  • A.C. No. 1302,1391 and 1543 April 26, 1991 - PAULINO VALENCIA v. ARSENIO FER. CABANTING

  • G.R. No. 45142 April 26, 1991 - SIMPROSA VDA. DE ESPINA, ET AL. v. OTILIO ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 49839-46 April 26, 1991 - JOSE B.L. REYES v. PEDRO ALMANZOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51461 April 26, 1991 - CRISPIN DASALLA, SR. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 69344 April 26, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76212 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO TUGBANG

  • G.R. No. 83957 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CABANBAN

  • G.R. No. 84728 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR ATENTO

  • G.R. No. 86641 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIC C. ANSING

  • G.R. No. 88838 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES MOKA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92586 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO L. PUEDAN

  • G.R. No. 93559 April 26, 1991 - ROMEO G. ELEPANTE v. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 50098 April 30, 1991 - ASSOCIATED CITIZENS BANK v. RAMON V. JAPSON

  • G.R. No. 69999 April 30, 1991 - LUZVIMINDA VISAYAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 71835 April 30, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 74670-74 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLY S. GANOHON

  • G.R. No. 76211 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJO M. CUYO

  • G.R. No. 76585 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BAGUIO

  • G.R. No. 81374 April 30, 1991 - JOSE R. BAUTISTA v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 85322 April 30, 1991 - ALFREDO M. ALMEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86042 April 30, 1991 - FEAGLE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MAURO DORADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86517 April 30, 1991 - ANDRES MAMA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86760 April 30, 1991 - CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL. v. PELAGIO S. MANDI

  • G.R. No. 87215 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO I. DE LAS MARINAS

  • G.R. No. 87928 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATIAS F. GRAZA

  • G.R. No. 88631 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO COLLADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88880 April 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92505 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MOTAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92591 April 30, 1991 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92658 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO P. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94151 April 30, 1991 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94209 April 30, 1991 - FEATI BANK & TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94436 April 30, 1991 - LAGRIMAS V. ABALOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.