1. LAW OF WATERS. — The Law of Waters now in force in these Islands is the law of 1896 and not the law of 1879 of the Peninsula.

2. ID.; ACCRETION (ALLUVION.) — By the provisions of the Law of Waters of 1866 land formed by the action of the sea is the property of the State.

3. ID.; ID. — The law in force prior to 1871 (when the Law of Waters of 1866 took effect here) relating to land formed by the action of the sea is found in the Partidas.

4. ID.; ID. — By the provisions of the Partidas, land formed by the action of the plea is the property of the State.

5. ID.; ID.; SANGLEY POINT. — That part of Sangley Point, in the Province of Cavite, in controvesy in this action, belonging to the States.

This is an action of ejectment to recover certain land in the Province of Cavite, described in the complaint as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A parcel of land constituting a part of the tract known as Sangley Point, situated within the municipal limits of San Roque, Province of Cavite, bounded on the north by Manila Bay; on the east by Manila Bay and Cañacao Bay; on the south by Manila Bay, Cañacao Bay, the northeast boundary of the property of the Veradero of Manila and the prolongation of the said northeast line toward the northwest to Manila Bay; and on the west by the said northeast boundary of the said Veradero Bay and by the said prolongation of the same and by Manila Bay."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendant is in possession of the above-described land as commandant of the Cavite Naval Station of the United States and sets up title in the United States.

The plaintiff claims title by conveyance made in 1901 and 1902 by the owners of the so-called "Hacienda de la Estanzuela" or "San Isidro Labrador." The land consists of a sandy point covered with weeds and brush (about 15 hectares in extent) which has been formed in the last one hundred years by accretion. In 1811 none of the parcel in controversy existed. in 1856 a part of it had been formed, perhaps one-fourth of the present area.

The foregoing statement is taken from the brief of the appellants. The defendants, in addition to a denial either direct or upon information and belief, of the facts stated in the complaint, pleaded the statute of limitations and also the following general defense:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"4. Y, por via defensa especial, expone el demandado que dicha porcion de la mencinada Punta es terreno hecho que ha venido agregandose a la linea de la antigua playa mediante acrecentamientos y depositos causados por la accion de la mar, y es parte del dominio publico del Gobierno."cralaw virtua1aw library

At the trial of the case the plaintiffs made the following admission:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Mr. SUTRO. The plaintiffs allege as special defense, in paragraph four of the answer, that said portion of said land was formed by lands aggregated to the line of shore by deposits and accretion-caused by action of the sea; and this allegation of special defense is admitted as true by the plaintiffs with the explanation that we do not determine the date of the commencement of the accretion, which we expect the defendant shall do."cralaw virtua1aw library

The court below, in view of the admission, decided that the land thus gained from the sea was public property and belonged to the State, and entered judgment for the defendant, stating that it was not necessary in the view that it took of the law to determine the other questions in the case, and particularly the defense of the statute of limitations which had been set up in the answer.

The plaintiffs — appellants in this court — make a number of assignments of error relating, most of them, to the admission and rejection of evidence offered on the subject of the statute of limitations. The appellants say in their brief that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Of course, if land formed by the action of the sea is ipso facto public domain, the question of prescription losses its interest and need not be considered."cralaw virtua1aw library

And again:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is apparent that the vital question in the case is this: Do new lands added by action of the sea to private estate become, by accession, incorporated in such estate, or are they public domain? This has been accepted by plaintiffs, defendant, and the trial court as the vital issue in this cause, and its determination will decide the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

We think that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed upon the ground upon which that court based its decision, and therefore the only question which we should consider is the one above referred to as quoted from the appellants’ brief.

A survey of the hacienda was made in 1811. At that time no part of the land here in question existed. In 1856 another survey was made and from that survey it appears that a part of this land had then been formed.

The Law of Waters of June 13, 1879, now in force in the Peninsula, was never extended to the Philippines. By a royal order of August 8, 1866, the Law of Waters of August 3, 1856, was sent here. The cumplase of the Governor-General was not attached to this royal order until September 21, 1871. it was published in the "Gaceta de Manila" on September 24, 1871, and the law declared to be in force here. Doubts having arisen as to whether the law was communicated to the Islands in the proper way, they were settled by the royal order of April 8, 1873, which was promulgated on July 12, 1873. The law was declared to be inforce in the Archipelago. As to the land formed since 1871, then, the rights of the parties must be determined with reference to the Law of Waters of 1866, and the provisions contained in the present Civil Code. Article 1 of that law 1 is in part as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Son del dominio nacional y uso publico: . . .

"3.