MARIO Z. TITONG v. CA

FACTS:

This case involves a 20,592 square-meter parcel of land in Masbate City which is claimed by two parties. Petitioner Mario Titong filed an action for quieting of title, alleging that he is the owner of the land. However, the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of private respondents Victorico Laurio and Angeles Laurio, declaring them as the true owners of the disputed land. Petitioner appeals the decision to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court.

Petitioner claims to be the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area of 3.2800 hectares. He alleges that private respondents forcibly entered a portion of the land and began plowing it under the pretext of ownership. On the other hand, private respondents assert that the disputed property was part of a 5.5-hectare agricultural land which they purchased from their predecessor-in-interest, Pablo Espinosa. There were conflicting claims and conveyances of the property, with discrepancies between the surveys made for petitioner and the relocation survey ordered by the lower court.

Throughout the proceedings, both parties presented evidence to support their respective claims of ownership over the disputed land. The lower court ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring them as the true owners of the property and ordering petitioner to respect their title and ownership.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but his appeal was denied. He then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking a favorable reversal of the lower court's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the complaint filed by the petitioner is valid for an action to quiet title.

  2. Whether the lower court erred in considering the case as a boundary dispute.

  3. Whether the petitioner satisfied the requirements of good faith and just title.

  4. Whether petitioner acquired ownership through extraordinary acquisitive prescription.

  5. Whether the survey plan, tax declaration, and commissioner's report conclusively demonstrate petitioner's title over the disputed property.

  6. Whether the petition for review on certiorari should be granted.

RULING:

  1. The complaint filed by the petitioner is not valid for an action to quiet title. The acts alleged in the complaint, which involve forcible entry, may be considered grounds for an action for forcible entry but not for quieting of title.

  2. The lower court did not err in considering the case as a boundary dispute. The answer filed by the respondents and the evidence presented during the hearing established that the case was indeed a boundary dispute. The court cannot order the determination of boundaries in an action for quieting of title, as this would go beyond the limited scope of the action.

  3. Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of good faith and just title. The court held that petitioner's acts of converting the boundary line into a ricefield and subsequently claiming ownership were acts of deprivation and tantamount to bad faith.

  4. Petitioner did not acquire ownership through extraordinary acquisitive prescription. The court held that petitioner's alleged possession of the property for 21 years falls short of the required 30-year period under Article 1137 of the Civil Code.

  5. The survey plan, tax declaration, and commissioner's report do not conclusively demonstrate petitioner's title over the disputed property. A survey is not a mode of acquiring ownership and the survey plan may only refer to a delineation of possession. The survey plan was also not verified and approved by the Bureau of Lands as required by law. A tax declaration is not considered conclusive evidence of ownership and the discrepancy between petitioner's tax declaration and the commissioner's report is significant.

  6. The petition for review on certiorari is denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The decision is immediately executory. Costs are awarded against the petitioner.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A complaint to quiet title must allege the existence of an "instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding" that beclouds the plaintiff's title over the property involved. Acts of physical intrusion, such as forcible entry, are not grounds for a quieting of title action.

  • Determination of boundaries is appropriate in adversarial proceedings where possession or ownership may properly be considered and where evidence other than the "instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding" itself may be introduced. An action for forcible entry or recovery of possession may be availed of to fully thresh out the boundary dispute.

  • Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years, provided that the possession is in good faith and with just title. Good faith means that the possessor had a reasonable belief that the person from whom they received the property was the owner and could transmit ownership. Just title means that the possession was acquired through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, even if the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.

  • No man can be allowed to found a claim upon his own wrongdoing.

  • Ownership and other real rights over immovables prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.

  • A survey plan, tax declaration, and commissioner's report do not conclusively demonstrate ownership and must be verified and approved by the proper authorities.

  • A tax declaration is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership and does not by itself give title.

  • The Court of Appeals' decision may be affirmed if found to be in accordance with law and supported by evidence.

  • The decision of the Court of Appeals may be immediately executory.

  • Costs may be awarded to the prevailing party.