Case Digest: Daclison vs. Baytion, G.R. No. 219811. April 6, 2016.

CASE TITLE: Daclison vs. Baytion
GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 219811. April 6, 2016.
PONENTE: Mendoza, J.
CASE WITH THE SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: MeTC - Forcible Entry and Damages with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction RTC - Appeal CA - Appeal
FACTS: Eduardo Baytion is a co-owner of a 1,500 square meter parcel of land, covered by TCT No. 221507, inherited from his parents and administered by him. Erected on the said property was a one-storey building divided into seven units, one of which was leased to Leonida Dela Cruz for her business. After Leonida's lease expired in May 2008, Rex Daclison and others took possession of the stall without Baytion’s consent and used it for their business without paying rent. In June 2008, Baytion demanded Daclison vacate the property, but Daclison refused. In January 2009, Baytion filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry and Damages with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Quezon City against Daclison. Answer: In 1978, Baytion leased the subject portion to Antonio dela Cruz, who started a business there. 10-15 years later, a stone walling (riprap) was erected at the creek beside Baytion’s property, creating a down-slope area. Antonio negotiated with an engineer to possess the down-slope area and filled it up to level with the leased portion. Antonio paid for the right to possess the filled-up area. In 2000, Antonio’s business was taken over by Leonida, who suffered a stroke in December 2007. After Leonida’s death, Ernanie Dela Cruz took over the business. In February 2008, Daclison entered into a business venture with Ernanie and took over management of the business. Baytion sent a letter to Ernanie requesting she vacate the premises. Baytion and Ernanie agreed she would continue the lease; Daclison issued a ₱100,000.00 check for rental arrears. Two weeks later, Baytion returned the check and demanded Ernanie vacate the property. Baytion promised not to bother them if they moved to the filled-up area. Daclison and Ernanie vacated the original leased area and transferred to the filled-up portion. Despite relocating, Baytion filed a complaint with the barangay, claiming the filled-up portion was his property. The barangay executive officer's report indicated a boundary marker (mojon) placed by Daclison, showing the property boundary. Baytion acknowledged the report and initially agreed to end the dispute. Despite the agreement, Baytion sent another demand letter to vacate MeTC: Dismissed the case due to Baytion not including his co-owners as plaintiffs, without prejudice. RTC: MeTC lacked jurisdiction as the complaint did not constitute forcible entry, but exercised original jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Baytion's better right of possession. CA:  Concluded that Baytion, as co-owner of the subject property, had a better right to possess
ISSUE: Whether the filled-up portion is not an improvement on the leased property as found by the RTC and the court a quo, and thus, a property separate and distinct from the leased property. YES
ARGUMENTS/LEGAL BASES
PETITIONER	RESPONDENTS
The filled-up portion between the riprap constructed by the government and the property of Baytion and therefore, outside of the land co-owned by Baytion.	Although the disputed portion is outside the description of the property covered by TCT No. 221507, it forms an integral part of the latter because it is an accretion, construction, or improvement on the property and, under the law, any accretion or anything built thereon belongs to him and his co-owners.
PREVAILING PARTY:  Daclison
DECISION/DOCTRINE: At the outset, it was clear that the disputed property was the filled-up portion between the riprap constructed by the government and the property covered by TCT No. 221507. According to Daclison, the property covered by TCT No. 221507 had already been surrendered to Baytion which the latter never disputed. As such, the Court is now confronted with the question as to who between the parties has a better right over this contested portion between the land co-owned by Baytion and the constructed riprap. Baytion does not have a better right over the contested portion The RTC and the CA erred in holding that Baytion has a better right to possess the contested portion. Baytion’s contention that he owns that portion by reason of accretion is misplaced. Article 457 of the New Civil Code provides: To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belongs the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. In other words, the following requisites must concur in order for an accretion to be considered, namely: (1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be made through the effects of the current of the water; and, (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.  In the case at bench, this contested portion cannot be considered an accretion. To begin with, the land came about not by reason of a gradual and imperceptible deposit. The deposits were artificial and man-made and not the exclusive result of the current from the creek adjacent to his property. Baytion failed to prove the attendance of the indispensable requirement that the deposit was due to the effect of the current of the river or creek. Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature and not a result of human intervention. Furthermore, the disputed property cannot also be considered an improvement or accession. Article 445 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles. It must be noted that Article 445 uses the adverb "thereon" which is simply defined as "on the thing that has been mentioned." In other words, the supposed improvement must be made, constructed or introduced within or on the property and not outside so as to qualify as an improvement contemplated by law. Otherwise, it would just be very convenient for land owners to expand or widen their properties in the guise of improvements. In view of all the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Court that Baytion, not being the owner of the contested portion, does not have a better right to possess the same. In fact, in his initiatory pleading, he never claimed to have been in prior possession of this piece of property. His claim of ownership is without basis. As earlier pointed out, the portion is neither an accretion nor an accession. That being said, it is safe to conclude that he does not have any cause of action to eject Daclison. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The February 5, 2015 Decision and the August 3, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 99627 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint for possession is hereby ordered DISMISSED.