New Regent Sources v. Tanjuatco

 

NEW REGENT SOURCES, INC. V. TEOFILO VICTOR TANJUATCO, JR., and VICENTE CUEVAS QUISUMBING,  J.: FACTS: 1.  Petitioner New Regent Sources, Inc. (NRSI) filed a Complaint Complaint  for Rescission/Declaration of Nullity of  [3]

Contract, Reconveyance and Damages  against respondent Tanjuatco and the Register of Deeds of Calamba. 2.  NRSI alleged that in 1994, it authorized Vicente P. Cuevas III, its Chairman and President, to apply on its behalf, for the acquisition of two parcels of land by virtue of its right of accretion. 3.  Cuevas purportedly applied for the lots in his name by paying P82,400.38 to the Bureau of Lands. 4.  OnJanuary 2, 1995, Cuevas and his wife executed ex ecuted a Voting Trust Agreement Agreement  over their shares of stock in the [4]

corporation. Then, pending approval of the application with the Bureau of Lands, L ands, Cuevas assigned his right to

Tanjuatco for the sum of P85,000.[5]  5.  On March 12, 1996, the Director of Lands released an Order, Order,  which approved the transfer of rights from [6]

Cuevas to Tanjuatco. Transfer Certificates of Title were then is issued sued in the name of Tanjuatco. Tanjuatco. 6.  According to Tanjuatco, it was Cuevas who was alleged to have defrauded the corporation. 7.  In dismissing NRSI’s complaint, complaint,

[14]

 the RTC cited the Order of the Director of Lands and certain insufficiencies in

the allegations in the complaint. The trial court further held that Tanjuatco is an innocent purchaser for valu value. e. 8.  NRSI moved for reconsideration, but it was denied by the trial court. 9.  Hence, NRSI filed the instant petition for review r eview on certiorari, raising the following issues: ISSUES: (1) Whether NRSI has a valid claim over the lands subjects of this case through accretion. (2) Whether RTC erred in declaring Tanjuatco a buyer in good faith. HELD: (1)  NO. NRSI anchors its claim over the lands subjects of this case on the right of accretion. It submitted in evidence, titles titles

[30]

 to

four parcels of land, which allegedly adjoin the lots in the name of Tanjuatco. [31]

But it must be stressed that accretion as a mode of acquiring property under A Article rticle 457

 of the Civil Code requires the

concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to [32]

the banks of rivers. rivers.

  Thus, it is not enough to be a riparian owner in order to enjoy the benefits of accretion. One who

claims the right of accretion must show by preponderant evidence that he has met all the conditions provided by law. Petitioner has notably failed in this regard as it did not offer any evidence evidence to prove that it has satisfied the foregoing requisites. (2)  NO. Petitioner disagrees with the trial court’s finding that Tanjuatco was a buyer in good good faith. It contends that the Ma March rch 12, 1996 Order of the Director of Lands which declared that the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-369406 and T-369407 were free from claims and conflicts when Cuevas assigned his rights thereon the reon to Tanjuatco. But petitioner’s claim is untenable because respondents did not formally offer said order in evidence. From all the foregoing, it is plain and apparent that NRSI failed to substantiate its claim of entitlement to ownership of  the lands in Tanjuatco’s name. name. The trial court, therefore, correctly dismissed petitioner’s complaint for reconveyance.  reconveyance.