USPF School of Law
Property and Land Law Sec. A
BAES v. CA, G.R. NO. 108065, JULY 6, 1993
Art. 461 Abandoned river bed
Digest by Faith R. Balaga
Doctrine: River beds abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters belong
to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost.
FACTS
Spouses Felix Baes and Rafaela Baes seek compensation for the loss of their land due to
the government's diversion of a river. In 1962, the government dug a canal on a private parcel of
land owned by Felix Baes, identified as Lot 2958 and covering an area of 33,902 sq.m., to
streamline the Tripa de Gallina creek. Baes later subdivided the lot into three lots, one of which,
Lot 2958-B, was totally occupied by the canal. In exchange for Lot 2958-B, the government gave
Baes a lot with the same area, denominated as Lot 3271-A. The soil displaced by the canal was
used to fill up the old bed of the creek. In 1978, the Republic of the Philippines discovered that
Lot 1-B, on which the petitioners had erected an apartment building, covered a filled-up portion
of the Tripa de Gallina creek. The government filed a petition for cancellation of the titles
covering the affected lots.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are entitled to additional compensation for the loss of their land
due to the government's diversion of the river.
RULING
The petitioners are not entitled to additional compensation. The exchange of lots between
the petitioners and the Republic was a fair one as the lots were of the same area and value.
Allowing the petitioners to acquire ownership of the dried-up portion of the creek would be a case
of double compensation and unjust enrichment at the expense of the state. The exchange of lots
was the result of voluntary negotiations, and if these negotiations had failed, the government
could have taken Lot 2958-B under the power of eminent domain upon payment of just
compensation.
The court based its ruling on Article 461 of the Civil Code, which states that river beds
abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters belong to the owners whose
lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. The court interpreted this
article to apply even when the change in the course of the river is effected through artificial means.
The petitioners have already been compensated through the fair exchange of lots. Allowing them
to acquire ownership of the dried-up portion of the creek would be a case of double compensation
and unjust enrichment. The exchange of lots was the result of voluntary negotiations. The
government could have taken Lot 2958-B under eminent domain if the negotiations had failed.