SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 219811. April 6, 2016.]

REX DACLISON , petitioner, vs. EDUARDO BAYTION , respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA , J : p

Assailed in this petition for review 1 are the February 5, 2015 Decision 2 and the
August 3, 2015 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 99627,
which af rmed in toto the April 27, 2012 Decision 4 rendered by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 224, Quezon City (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q-09-66145, a case for forcible
entry.
The Antecedents
On January 27, 2009, respondent Eduardo Baytion (Baytion) led a complaint 5
for Forcible Entry and Damages with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 43, Quezon City (MeTC) against
petitioner Rex Daclison (Daclison), which was docketed as Civil Case No. 39225.
In the complaint, Baytion alleged that he was a co-owner of a parcel of land
consisting of 1,500 square meters, covered by Transfer Certi cate Title (TCT) No.
221507. The said property was inherited by him and his siblings from their parents and,
as agreed upon, was being administered by him. As administrator, he leased portions
of the property to third persons.
Erected on the said property was a one-storey building which was divided into
seven units or stalls. One of the stalls was leased to a certain Leonida Dela Cruz
(Leonida) who used it for her business of selling rocks, pebbles and similar
construction materials.
When the lease of Leonida expired sometime in May 2008, Daclison and other
persons acting under her took possession of the portion leased and occupied by
Leonida without the prior knowledge and consent of Baytion. Since then, Daclison had
been occupying the contested portion and using it for his business of selling marble
and other finishing materials without paying anything to Baytion.
Upon learning of Daclison's unauthorized entry into the subject portion of the
property, sometime in June 2008, Baytion demanded that he vacate it. Despite oral and
written demands to vacate, Daclison refused to do so. This prompted Baytion to le the
complaint for forcible entry and damages.
Daclison, in his answer, averred that sometime in 1978, Baytion leased the
subject portion to Antonio dela Cruz (Antonio) where the latter started a business; that
ten or fteen years later, a stone walling, called a riprap , was erected at the creek lying
beside Baytion's property, leaving a deep down-sloping area; that Antonio negotiated
with a certain engineer so he could be in possession of the said down-slope; that
Antonio had the down-slope lled up until it was leveled with the leased portion; that
Antonio paid for the right to possess the same; that in 2000, Antonio's business was
taken over by Leonida, who suffered a stroke in December 2007; that after her death,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the business was taken over by Ernanie Dela Cruz (Ernanie); that in February 2008, he
(Daclison) entered into a business venture with Ernanie in the same leased property and
he took over the management of the business; that he received a letter from Baytion
addressed to Ernanie requesting the latter to vacate the subject premises; that Baytion
and Ernanie came to an agreement that the latter would continue the lease of the
property; that he issued a check in the amount of P100,000.00 as payment for the
rental arrears; that two weeks thereafter, Baytion returned the check and demanded
that Ernanie vacate the property; that Baytion promised that he would no longer bother
them if they would just transfer to the lled-up and plane-leveled property; that on
account of the said promise, he and Ernanie vacated the leased area and transferred
their business to the filled-up portion; that despite the fact that they already vacated the
leased portion of the property, Baytion still led a complaint with the barangay claiming
that the lled-up portion was part of his property; that the executive of cer of the
barangay who conducted the investigation made a report indicating that a mojon was
placed by him (Daclison) which showed the boundary of Baytion's property, that
Baytion acknowledged the said report and agreed to put an end to the controversy; and
that despite Baytion's agreement to put an end to the dispute, he still sent a demand
letter to vacate. 6 cAaDHT

On August 25, 2009, the MeTC dismissed the case on the ground that Baytion
failed to include his siblings or his co-owners, as plaintiffs in the case. The dismissal,
however, was without prejudice.
Baytion appealed the case to the RTC, which ruled that the MeTC lacked
jurisdiction to decide the case because the allegations in the complaint failed to
constitute a case of forcible entry. Pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court,
however, the RTC did not dismiss the case and, instead, exercised its original
jurisdiction over the same.
The RTC then decided that Baytion had a better right of possession over the
property. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering:
1) The defendant and other persons claiming under him to vacate and to
turn over the possession of the subject property to the plaintiff; and,
2) The defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P20,000.00/monthly for the
use of the premises commencing from May 2008 until the subject premises is
vacated.
SO ORDERED. 7
Aggrieved, Daclison filed an appeal with the CA.
The CA tackled two issues, namely: a) whether the RTC committed a reversible
error when it exercised original jurisdiction of the case and decided the same on its
merits pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court; and, b) who, between
Baytion and Daclison, had a better right to possess the subject property.
The CA ruled that the MeTC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case in a
summary proceeding for forcible entry because Baytion failed to allege that he was in
prior physical possession of the property and that he was deprived of his possession
under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. It was of the view that the
present action for forcible entry had actually ripened into one for recovery of the right
to possess or accion publiciana, which was an action in an ordinary civil proceeding in
the Regional Trial Court. The action was aimed at determining who among the parties
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 had a better right of possession of realty independent of the issue of ownership or title.
It was an ejectment suit led after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the
cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. 8 Thus, it
agreed with the RTC when the latter correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case
following the mandate of Section 8, Rule 40 of the Revised Rules of Court. 9
As to the issue of possession, the CA concluded that Baytion, as co-owner of the
subject property, had a better right to possess. It wrote:
. . ., it is clear that Antonio, Leonida and Ernanie were all lessees of the
subject property and its improvements owned by the plaintiff. Ernanie, who is a
sub-lessee of the subject property, again sub-leased the same to appellant,
without authority or consent from appellee. Thus, since appellant have been
possessing the subject property in his capacity as a mere sub-lessee, he cannot
own the subject property and its improvements through open, continuous and
adverse possession of the property. It follows then that appellee has the right to
repossess the subject property. 10
On February 5, 2015, the CA rendered the assailed decision, disposing in this
wise:
WHEREFORE , the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit, and the Decision 27 April 2012 rendered by Branch 224 of the RTC of
Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-09-66145 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED . 11
Daclison led a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in the
assailed resolution.
Hence, the present petition for review raising the following:
ISSUES
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD
THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS AN ACCION PUBLICIANA , MORE
SIGNIFICANTLY [WITH] RESPECT TO THE LAND OUTSIDE TCT NO.
221507; THAT, EFFECTIVELY, THE RESPONDENT HAS PRIOR
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OUTSIDE TCT NO. 221507.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED UNDER THE LAW
WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS A LESSEE OF THE
SECOND PROPERTY.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED UNDER THE LAW
WHEN IT RULED THAT THE SECOND PROPERTY OR LAND WAS AN
IMPROVEMENT ON THE PROPERTY OF THE RESPONDENT.
IV.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED UNDER THE LAW
WHEN IT RULED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS LEGAL CAPACITY TO
SUE.
V.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED UNDER THE LAW
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PETITIONER SHOULD PAY THE
[RESPONDENT] THE AMOUNT OF P20,000 MONTHLY FOR THE USE OF
THE PREMISES . 12 HCaDIS

Daclison insists that what is really in dispute in the present controversy is the
lled-up portion between the riprap constructed by the government and the property of
Baytion and, 13 therefore, outside of the land co-owned by Baytion. Accordingly, the RTC
and the CA should have dismissed the case because the leased property was already
surrendered to its owner, thereby, mooting the complaint. 14
Daclison insists that Antonio, from whom he derived his right over the contested
portion, made an open, continuous and adverse possession and use of the property
when the latter extended his place of business to the lled-up portion. 15 He claims that
the lled-up portion is not an improvement on the leased property as found by the RTC
and the court a quo. It is a property separate and distinct from the leased property. 16
The Respondent's Position
Baytion basically posits that 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.
17

The Court's Ruling

At the outset, it was clear that the disputed property was the lled-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; aCIHcD

(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. 18
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 arti cial and man-made and not the exclusive result of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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. 19
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.
[Emphases supplied]
It must be noted that Article 445 uses the adverb "thereon" which is simply
de ned as "on the thing that has been mentioned." 20 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 .
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, Brion, Del Castillo and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 11-32.
2. Id. at 33-44; Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Isaias P.
Dicdican and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
3. Id. at 45-46.

4. Id. at 88-92. Penned by Presiding Judge Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon.

5. Id. at 47-52.

6. Id. at 83-84.
7. Id. at 92.
8. Id. at 41.

9. Id. at 41.
10. Id. at 43.

11. Id. at 43-44.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 12. Id. at 21-22.

13. Id. at 23-24.

14. Id. at 23.
15. Id. at 26.

16. Id. at 29.

17. Id. at 125-126.

18. Republic of the Philippines v. CA, 217 Phil. 483, 489 (1984).
19. Id.
20. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thereon.> Last visited on March 2, 2016.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com