Short answer. No. Only things and rights that are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. A river, a road, or anything else the law puts beyond private ownership cannot legally be possessed in the sense the Civil Code protects, however long you occupy or use it.
What the law says
Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession.
Civil Code, Article 530 — What May Be Possessed. Read the full provision →
Possession requires the thing to be appropriable in the first place
The statute sets a threshold before possession law even applies: the thing or right in question must be susceptible of being appropriated — capable, by its nature, of being taken into private ownership. If something falls outside that category altogether, it cannot be the object of possession in the legal sense the Civil Code protects, no matter how long or how openly someone occupies or uses it.
Rivers, roads, and similar things generally fall outside this category
A river and a road are common examples of things that the law generally withholds from private appropriation, because they serve a public use or purpose rather than belonging to any individual. Because they are not the kind of thing susceptible of being appropriated, they cannot be the object of the legal possession this article describes — you cannot acquire the rights and protections that come with possession over them the way you could over an ordinary parcel of private land.
This is different from mere physical occupation
Someone can physically occupy or use a river or a road without that use amounting to legal possession in the Civil Code sense. The distinction matters because certain legal consequences — such as acquiring rights through possession over time — depend on the object being genuinely capable of appropriation in the first place. Physical use of something the law places beyond private ownership does not, by itself, create the kind of possession this article is describing.
What determines whether a thing is appropriable
This article states the threshold requirement but does not itself catalog every category of thing that is or is not susceptible of appropriation — that determination depends on other rules distinguishing property that can be privately owned from property devoted to public use or otherwise placed outside commerce. Whether a particular river, road, or similar resource can ever become subject to appropriation, and under what circumstances, is a separate question this provision does not resolve on its own.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- La Tondena, Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 194617, August 5, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Republic of the Philippines, represented by Commander Raymond Alpuerto of the Naval Base Osias, Port San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan vs Rev. Claudio R. Cortez Sr, G.R. No. 197472, September 7, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Frisco F. Domalsin vs. Spouses Juanito Valenciano and Amalia Valenciano, G.R. No. 158687, January 25, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →