In the absence of evidence that the change in the course of the river was sudden or that it occurred through
alluvium,
the presumption is that the change was gradual and was caused by alluvium and erosion. (Payatas-Estate Improve-
ment Co. v. Tuason, 53 Phil. 55; Hodges v. Garcia, L-12730, Aug. 22, 1960).
Art. 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto
belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the
owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof,
which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed.
(3) Requisites for Art. 461 (Change of River Bed) to Apply
1. (a) The change must be sudden in order that the old river bed may be identified. (There must be sufficient
evidence showing that the river changed its course not gradually or imperceptively, but abruptly.) (Eguia v.
Eguia, CA-G.R. No. 2575-R, June 9, 1949).
2. (b) The changing of the course must be more or less perma- nent, and not temporary overflooding of
another’s land. (Decision of the Supreme Court of France on Feb. 26, 1896).
3. (c) The change of the river bed must be a natural one, i.e., caused by natural forces (and not by artificial
means such as those used by private individuals authorized by the government — in which case the State
may give the old river bed to the persons responsible for the change. (See 3 Manresa 251-252).
4. (d) There must be a definite abandonment by the govern- ment. If the government shortly after the change
decides and actually takes steps to bring the river to its old bed, Art. 461 will not apply, for here, we cannot
say that there was an abandonment. The government is not compelled to stand by idly and let nature take its
course. Thus, the government may redirect the course even in the face of opposition from those who may
be affected. (Panlilio v. Mercado, 44 Phil. 695).
5. (e) The river must continue to exist, that is, it must not com- pletely dry up or disappear. If indeed there is a
complete drying up, who would own the dried up river bed? Under the old Code, the Court of Appeals,
applying Art. 370 (old Code) to this case of disappearance, held that the old bed belonged to the riparian
owners if the government did not claim it. Under the new Code, it would seem that it should belong to
public dominion, since no private lands are injured and since as a rule under Art. 502, a river bed belongs
to public dominion, unless otherwise provided by the law. (See Pinzon v. Rama, [CA] 2 O.G. [Rep.], No. 3,
p. 307).
G.R. No. L-43882 April 30, 1979
ANGELICA VIAJAR and CELSO VIAJAR, plaintiffs-petitioners,
vs.
HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch III,
RICARDO LADRIDO and ROSENDO TE, defendants-respondents.
G.R. No. L-45321 April 30, 197
ANGELICA VIAJAR and CELSO VIAJAR, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
RICARDO LADRIDO and ROSENDO TE
G.R. No. 77294 December 12, 1988
ANGELICA VIAJAR and CELSO VIAJAR, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, LEONOR P. LADRIDO, LOURDES LADRIDO IGNACIO, EUGENIO P.
LADRIDO and L P. LADRIDO
1) Whether or not the change in the course of the Suague River was gradual or sudden
2) Whether or not the plaintiffs are protected by the Torrens System (in relation to the dimunition
of the area of their land because the plaintiffs are contending that Art 457 must be interpreted as
applicable only to unregistered lands)
RULING:
It was established in the trial that for a period of 40 years the Suague river overflowed its banks
yearly and the property of the defendant gradually received deposits of soil from the effects of
the current of the river.
It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian
owner against the dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the
course of an adjoining stream or river. Accretions which the banks of the river may gradually
receive from the effect of the current become the property of the owners of the banks.
