G.R. No. 12264 ; September 23, 1918
DOMINGO BANATAO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. SALVADOR DABBAY, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
An island called “Fugu” formed in the navigable Cagayan River approximately forty to fifty years prior to this action. The plaintiffs’ ancestor, Juan Banatao, was the first to occupy the northern end of the island. Over time, the river’s eastern branch dried up, connecting Fugu terrestrially to the eastern bank. The river’s action caused erosion at the island’s southern end and significant alluvial accretion at its northern and northwestern parts, vastly increasing the area originally occupied by Juan Banatao. In 1894, Jacinto Banatao (Juan’s son) obtained a possessory information for the occupied portion. The defendant, Salvador Dabbay, owned land on the eastern side of the river’s abandoned bed. He claimed ownership over a 12-hectare strip of the accreted land, alleging it formed as an accretion to his riparian property. Dabbay also invoked a prior 1909 judgment in an unlawful detainer case he filed against some of the plaintiffs, which awarded him possession.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the alluvial accretion to the island of Fugu belongs to the plaintiffs (as owners of the island) or to the defendant (as a riparian owner on the eastern mainland).
2. Whether the prior judgment in the unlawful detainer case constitutes res judicata barring the present action to determine ownership.

RULING:
1. On Ownership of the Accretion: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The alluvial accretion belongs to the owners of the island to which it attached, not to the defendant. The applicable laws are Article 366 of the Civil Code and Article 84 of the Law of Waters, which grant accretions gradually deposited by the current to the owners of the estates bordering the river. The plaintiffs’ predecessor acquired title to the original island from the State through occupation and possessory information. The Court agreed with the trial court’s reasoning that the island, once appropriated, must be treated as having its own “banks,” and accretions thereto belong to its owner. The defendant’s claim under Article 373 of the Civil Code (islands formed by successive accumulations) was inapplicable, as the accretion here was an addition to an existing, owned island, not the formation of a new island between two riparian owners. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s taking of judicial notice of the Cagayan River’s navigability.

The judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs was affirmed.