Can you sue for creek or river encroachment after decades in the Philippines?

Prescription, nuisance, and public easement law—what to know (Philippine context)

Not legal advice. This is a practitioner-style overview of the major rules, remedies, defenses, and edge cases that typically show up in disputes over “encroachment” on creeks, rivers, esteros, and their banks in the Philippines.

The short answer

Yes—you can usually still sue even after decades if the encroachment involves a public waterway, its bed, or the statutory public easement along its banks. That’s because:

Creeks/rivers and their beds are part of the public domain (Civil Code, arts. 420–422; Water Code/PD 1067), and public dominion property isn’t acquired by prescription (Civil Code, art. 1113).
The statutory “salvage/bank easement” (3 m in urban, 20 m in agricultural, 40 m in forest areas—Water Code, art. 51) is a legal easement for public use; private occupation there doesn’t ripen into ownership.
Public nuisances (e.g., obstructions of a public waterway) are abatable and generally imprescriptible while the nuisance continues (Civil Code, arts. 694–707).

There are, however, important carve-outs and defenses—especially when the fight is really about private land between riparian owners (accretion/avulsion/boundaries), or when land is registered under the Torrens system, or when the original “encroachment” is actually lawful infrastructure.

Core legal frameworks

1) Public dominion over natural waterways

Civil Code, arts. 420–422. Rivers, streams/creeks, and their natural beds are property of public dominion—for public use and outside commerce.
Prescription doesn’t run against public dominion property (Civil Code, art. 1113). Occupation “since time immemorial” doesn’t vest title.
If a title overlaps a natural waterway, the overlapped portion is void as against the State to that extent; what you have is at most a mistake to be corrected, not a vested private right.

2) The statutory public easement (Water Code, PD 1067, art. 51)

Along the banks/shores of rivers, streams, seas, and lakes, there is a public easement for navigation, recreation, floatage, fishing, and salvage:
- 3 meters (urban areas)
- 20 meters (agricultural areas)
- 40 meters (forest areas)
This zone is for public use and cannot be validly enclosed, built over, or occupied by private parties beyond transient use.
Because it’s a legal easement, it cannot be lost by non-use and cannot be acquired by prescription by a private possessor.

3) Nuisance law (Civil Code, arts. 694–707)

A public nuisance includes obstructions or impairments to the use of any public way or body of water (art. 694).
Who can act: the State, LGUs, or a private person specially injured may sue or seek abatement (arts. 699–700).
Continuing public nuisances remain actionable; lapse of time doesn’t legalize an obstruction of public right.

4) Prescription and laches—when they do and don’t apply

Against the State (public dominion): no acquisitive prescription (Civil Code, art. 1113). Laches/estoppel generally don’t bar the State when enforcing sovereign/public rights (e.g., protecting waterways and easements).
Private-to-private boundary or possession disputes (unregistered land):
- Ordinary acquisitive prescription: 10 years (requires good faith + just title) (Civil Code, art. 1134).
- Extraordinary acquisitive prescription: 30 years (no title or good faith needed) (art. 1137).
Registered (Torrens) land: title is generally indefeasible and imprescriptible; adverse possession does not defeat a Torrens title.
Private easements can be acquired by prescription (if continuous/apparent) and extinguished by non-use for 10 years; legal easements (like the Water Code easement) are not extinguished that way.

5) Riparian rules affecting “encroachment”

Alluvion/accretion (Civil Code, art. 457): Gradual deposits along riverbanks belong to the riparian owner where the deposit forms—still subject to the statutory bank easement.
Avulsion (art. 459): Sudden detachment carries different rules; the original owner may recover soil within a limited time.
Change in river course / abandoned beds: Ownership consequences depend on whether the change was natural vs artificial; public dominion generally persists over natural watercourses and their current beds.
Natural drainage easement: Lower estates must receive waters that naturally flow from higher estates; owners can’t alter the natural flow to the prejudice of others (Civil Code provisions on legal easements of drainage). Blocking a creek/estero or diverting it can be actionable nuisance and statutory violation.

6) Environmental, building, and local governance overlays

Water Code (PD 1067): Prohibits unauthorized obstruction of public waters; regulates water use and diversion (permits via NWRB).
National Building Code (PD 1096): Requires setbacks and authorizes abatement/demolition of dangerous or illegal structures (local building officials).
Local Government Code (RA 7160): LGUs can declare and abate nuisances, enforce easements, and clear obstructions via ordinances and administrative action.
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003) and Clean Water Act (RA 9275): Penalize dumping/discharges into waterways; support removal of obstructions and remediation.
UDHA (RA 7279): Evictions from danger areas (e.g., riverbanks, esteros) require due process and relocation for underprivileged settlers, but the illegality of structures within the easement remains.

What “encroachment” usually looks like—and how the law treats it

Building/fencing inside the 3 / 20 / 40-meter bank easement
- Illegal vis-à-vis public easement. No prescription in favor of the encroacher.
- Remedies: administrative abatement (LGU/Building Official), civil injunction/abatement, potential criminal/administrative penalties under environmental/building laws.
Covering or narrowing the creek (culverting, reclamation, backfilling)
- Often a public nuisance and statutory violation; may worsen flooding.
- Remedies: mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction, restoration of natural flow, damages for special injury, plus agency enforcement.
Disputes over who owns newly formed ground (accretion) at the bank
- If it’s gradual: belongs to the riparian owner fronting it (still subject to the public easement).
- If it’s sudden (avulsion): different rule; original owner can recover the detached portion within the period and conditions set by law.
- Prescription between private parties may run if the strip is not public dominion and not registered—but the public easement still bites into that strip.
Structures built by government (e.g., floodwalls/bridges)
- Typically lawful if within authority and permitting; challenges focus on compliance with environmental/ROW laws rather than “encroachment.”

Can you sue “after decades”? How prescription really plays out

A. If the target area is public dominion (the creek/river itself, its current bed, or the bank easement)

You (or the State/LGU) can still sue for abatement/removal.
No acquisitive prescription; laches generally not a bar against the State and weak against private plaintiffs enforcing a public right (especially for a continuing nuisance).

B. If it’s a private-to-private land overlap beside a waterway

Determine registration status and survey/boundary facts:
- Registered land (Torrens): Encroacher’s possession won’t beat the title by prescription, no matter how long.
- Unregistered land: Possessor may raise 10-year ordinary (with title/good faith) or 30-year extraordinary prescription.
Even if the possessor claims the land, he still cannot lawfully occupy the statutory bank easement portion.

C. If the claim is framed as nuisance/obstruction (public or private)

A continuing nuisance gives a continuing cause of action; time alone doesn’t legalize it.
You can seek abatement and damages for the last four years (standard tort prescription) for the most recent injuries, even if the structure is older.

Typical remedies and how they’re used

Abatement/Removal (Public Nuisance or Statutory Violation)
- Who files: LGU, DPWH/DENR/NWRB (as appropriate), or a private party with special injury.
- Relief: Permanent/mandatory injunction ordering demolition/removal; restoration of natural flow; compliance with art. 51 easement widths.
Civil actions between neighbors
- Acción reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership) or acción publiciana (recovery of possession) if the dispute is about private land.
- Boundary relief: judicial determination using relocation surveys, hydrographic evidence (historic thalweg/centerline), and accretion/avulsion analysis.
Administrative enforcement
- Building Officials (PD 1096) can issue Notices of Violation, stop-work, and demolition orders for illegal structures over easements/waterways.
- LGUs can declare and abate nuisance via ordinance and summary abatement procedures (with due process).
Environmental enforcement
- Complaints under RA 9275 (Clean Water Act) and RA 9003 for discharges/dumping and obstructions; fines and cleanup orders.
Criminal liability
- Fact-specific (e.g., violations of special laws, disobedience to lawful orders, damage to property).

Common defenses—and why they often fail

“We’ve been here 30+ years” → Fails against public dominion and legal easements; no prescription.
“We have a building permit/barangay clearance” → Void if contrary to the Water Code/Building Code; permits don’t legalize what law forbids.
“Government slept (laches)” → Weak against sovereign enforcement of public rights.
“This is accretion; it’s ours now” → Maybe for the newly formed private strip, but the 3/20/40-m public easement still must be kept open.

Practical playbook (for complainants)

Map the legal status
- Identify whether the occupied strip is:
  - The creek/river bed (public).
  - Inside the 3/20/40-m bank easement (public easement).
  - Private land (registered/unregistered) adjacent to the waterway.
Get technical proof
- Relocation survey (geodetic engineer) tying current conditions to the approved cadastral plan and the centerline of the watercourse.
- Photos, flood history, evidence of impeded flow or backwater effects.
Choose the remedy path (you can pursue in parallel)
- Administrative: Report to LGU/Building Official; cite PD 1067 art. 51 and PD 1096.
- Civil: File for injunction/abatement (and damages if you have special injury). If it’s truly a private land overlap, consider reivindicatoria/publiciana.
- Environmental: File with DENR/EMB/NWRB/LGU under RA 9275/9003.
Mind pre-suit requirements
- If the defendant is a neighbor in the same city/municipality, complete Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay), unless an exception applies (e.g., the State/LGU is the complainant).
Relocation/humanitarian issues
- If informal settlers are involved, UDHA procedures (notice, consultation, relocation) may condition timing of demolition—but do not legalize the encroachment.

Practical playbook (for alleged encroachers)

Audit your location: Commission a licensed GE survey; verify zoning (urban/agri/forest) to know the easement width.
If you’re inside the bank easement or bed: Expect abatement; focus on safe, orderly removal and compliance.
If you rely on accretion: Document gradual formation, not sudden fill; expect to leave the easement open.
If you argue prescription: It won’t beat the State/easement; it might matter only in private, unregistered boundary overlaps.

Litigation angles and evidence tips

Hydrology & maps: Historical aerials, NAMRIA base maps, hydro surveys to show the natural thalweg and bank lines over time.
Flood modeling & damages: For nuisance claims, show special injury (e.g., repeated flooding traceable to a narrowed channel).
Permits & compliance: If the structure lacks clearances (water rights, ECC, building permit), that bolsters abatement.
Torrens vs. public domain: A Torrens title does not validate land that shouldn’t be registrable (e.g., river bed). Titles are conclusive only as to what the State could lawfully register.

Decision tree (quick triage)

Is the structure on the creek/river bed or within 3/20/40 m of the bank? Yes → Public domain/easement → Abate (imprescriptible). No → Go to 2.
Is the dispute purely between private owners over a strip beside the waterway? Yes → Check registration (Torrens?) and accretion/avulsion facts; prescription may apply only here. No → If it still impairs the public waterway, treat as nuisance.
Is there continuing obstruction/flood risk? Yes → Continuing nuisance → Injunction/abatement still available even after decades; damages for recent injuries.

What courts often order

Mandatory injunction to demolish/remove encroaching works.
Clearance of the statutory easement width, measured from the bank (not from an old fence line).
Restoration of channel capacity/flow, sometimes with agency supervision.
Damages (if special injury is proven), costs, and attorney’s fees in proper cases.
Administrative coordination with LGU/DPWH/DENR/NWRB for sustained compliance.

Key takeaways

Time favors order, not illegality. Occupying a creek/river bed—or the 3/20/40-meter public easement—never ripens into private ownership.
You can sue even after decades if the encroachment burdens the public waterway or its easement, or creates a continuing nuisance.
Prescription matters only at the margins (literally): in private, non-registered boundary overlaps away from the public easement/bed—and even there, results turn on accretion/avulsion and survey evidence.
Permits don’t trump statutes. If a permit green-lights what the Water Code forbids, the permit yields to the law.
Expect LGU and agency enforcement to align with court relief; UDHA may affect how removal happens, not whether it must happen.

If you’re preparing a case right now

Gather survey and hydrology proof early.
Frame relief around abatement of a continuing public nuisance and enforcement of the Water Code easement, with injunctive remedies.
If the dispute is private-to-private, plead boundary determination with alternative nuisance theories, and be explicit about why prescription doesn’t apply (public easement, continuing nuisance, Torrens, etc.).

If you want, I can turn this into a filing checklist and a sample complaint for injunction/abatement tailored to your facts.