March 6, 1998
Ponente: Romero, CJ.
FACTS:
·
Mario Z. Titong claims that on three separate
occasions in September 1983, Victorico Laurio and Angeles Laurio, together with
their hired workers, forcibly entered a portion of the 3.2800-hectare parcel of
land that Titong supposedly owns. He alleges that herein respondents illegally
occupied an area of approximately 2 hectares of the same parcel of land, and
began plowing the same as if it were theirs.
·
The Laurios denied this allegation. They
averred that the disputed property formed part of the 5.5-hectare agricultural
land which they had purchased from their predecessor-in-interest, Pablo
Espinosa, on August 10, 1981.
·
Titong's claim of ownership of the disputed
land is anchored on the following: (a) the survey plan prepared upon his
request; (b) the tax declaration in his name, which showed that the land had an
area of 5.5 hectares and was bounded on the North by the Bugsayon River, on the
East by property under the ownership of Lucio Lerit, on the South by property
owner by Potenciano Zaragoza, and on the West by property owned by Agapito de
la Cruz.; (c) the commissioners' report on the relocation survey; and (d) the
survey plan.
·
The Laurios' claim of ownership of the disputed
land is anchored on the premise that instead of taking only his rightful share
of .9000-hectare of the 3.6-hectare parcel of land following the death of
Leonida Zaragoza (mother of the Laurios), Titong actually took 2.4 hectares and
declared such a bloated figure as part of his inheritance. As such, the Laurios
claim that it was Titong who willfully encroached upon what was supposed to be
the property of the Laurios.
·
Because of the land dispute, Titong filed an
action for quieting of title before the Masbate RTC against the Laurios. The
RTC ruled in favor of the Laurios, adjudging them as the true and lawful owners
of the disputed land. This was affirmed by the CA. Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Whether
or not an action for the quieting of title is the correct remedy in the present
controversy. – NO.
·
An action for the quieting of title is
inappropriate in this case. The RTC should have dismissed Titong's complaint
right away. The complaint failed to allege that an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding beclouded the Titong's title over the property
involved. Instead, he merely alleged that the Laurios, together with their
hired laborers and without legal justification, forcibly entered the southern
portion of the disputeted land and plowed the same.
·
It was apparent to the Court that this was a
boundary dispute. Titong's allegations may be considered grounds for an action
for forcible entry but definitely not one for quieting of title.
·
The remedy of quieting of title may be availed
of only under the circumstances enumerated in Art. 476 of the Civil Code:
"Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest
therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title,
an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title."
·
Under Art. 476, a claimant must show that
there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which
constitutes or casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon the owners title
to or interest in real property. The ground or reason for filing a complaint
for quieting of title must therefore be an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding. Under the maxim expresio unius est exclusio
alterius, these grounds are exclusive so that other reasons outside of the
purview of these reasons (such as, in this case, forcible entry) may not be
considered valid for the same action.
Whether
or not the Laurios are the rightful owners of the disputed property. – YES.
·
The lower courts correctly held that when
Titong sold, ceded, transferred and conveyed the 5.5-hectare land in favor of
Pablo Espinosa, his rights of ownership and possession pertaining thereto
ceased and these were transferred to the latter. In the same manner, when
Espinosa sold the land to the Laurios, his rights of ownership over the land
ceased and were transferred to the Laurios upon its sale to the latter.
·
Titong's claim that he acquired ownership over
the disputed land through possession for more than twenty (20) years is
likewise unmeritorious. Art. 1137 of the Civil Code states that ownership and
other real rights over immovables prescribe through uninterrupted adverse
possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.
Aside from Titong's acts of converting the boundary line (Bugsayon River) into
a ricefield and thereafter claiming ownership thereof were acts constituting
deprivation of the rights of others and therefore tantamount to bad faith, his
claim of continued possession of 20 years
is also short of the 30-year requirement mandated by Art. 1137.
·
Also, Titong's pieces of evidence (survey,
survey plan, tax declaration, etc.) were insufficient to prove ownership. The
Court held that a survey under a proprietary title is not a conveyance. As
such, it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. The survey plan does not have
value either because the said plan was not verified and approved by the Bureau
of Lands. The same is true with Titong's tax declaration issued under his name,
which is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership, and is therefore not
considered a conclusive evidence of ownership.