Today is Friday, September 25, 2020

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 111141 March 6, 1998

MARIO Z. TITONG, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (4th Division), VICTORICO LAURIO and ANGELES LAURIO,
respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

Like a priceless treasure coveted by many, but capable of ownership by only one, this 20,592 square-meter parcel
of land located at Barrio Titong, Masbate, Masbate is claimed by two contestants in this petition for review on
certiorari. Unfortunately, legal title over the property can be vested in only one of them.

The case originated from an action for quieting of title filed by petitioner Mario Titong. The Regional Trial Court of
Masbate, Masbate, Branch 44 1 ruled in of private respondents, Victorico Laurio and Angeles Laurio, adjudging
them the true and lawful owners of the disputed land. Affirmed on appeal to the Court, of Appeals, petitioner comes
to us for a favorable reversal.

Petitioner alleges that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area of 3.2800 hectares, more or
less, surveyed as Lot No. 3918, and declared for taxation purposes in his name. He claims that on three separate
occasions in September 1983, private respondents, with their hired laborers, forcibly entered a portion of the land
containing an area of approximately two (2) hectares; and began plowing the same under pretext of ownership.
Private respondents denied this allegation, and averred that the disputed property formed part of the 5.5-hectare
agricultural land which they had purchased from their predecessor-in-interest, 2 Pablo Espinosa on August 10,
1981.

In his testimony, petitioner identified Espinosa as his adjoining owner 3, asserting that no controversy had sprouted
between them for twenty years until the latter sold Lot No. 3479 to private respondent Victorico Laurio. 4 This was
corroborated by Ignacio Villamor, who had worked on the land even before its sale to Espinosa in 1962. The
boundary between the land sold to Espinosa and what of petitioner's property was the old Bugsayon river. When
petitioner employed Bienvenido Lerit as his tenant in 1962, he instructed Lerit to change the course of the old river
and direct the flow of water to the lowland at the southern of petitioner' s property, thus converting the old river into a
riceland. 5

For his part, private respondent anchors his defense on the following facts: He denied petitioner's claim of
ownership, recounting that the area and boundaries of the disputed land remained unaltered during the series of
conveyances prior to its coming into his hands. According to him, petitioner first declared the land for taxation
purposes under Tax Declaration No. 2916, 6 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. 7

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111141_1998.html 25/09/2020, 8>48 PM

Page 1 of 7
Private Respondent then alleges that, on December 21, 1960, petitioner sold this property to Concepcion Verano
vda. de Cabug, after which Tax Declaration No. 5339 8 was issued in her favor. In compliance with their mutual
agreement to repurchase the same, petitioner reacquired the property by way of sale 9 on August 24, 1962 and then
declared it for taxation purposes in his name under Tax Declaration No. 5720. 10 However, the property remained in
petitioner's hands for only four (4) days because, on August 28, 1962, he sold it to Espinosa 11 who then declared it
in his name under Tax Declaration No. 12311. 12 Consequently, the property became a part of the estate of Pablo
Espinosa's wife, the late Segundina Liao Espinosa. On August 10, 1981, her heirs executed an instrument
denominated as "Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale" whereby the 5.5-hectare property under
Tax Declaration No. 12311 was sold to private respondent 13 in consideration of the amount of P5,000.00.
Thereafter, Tax Declaration No. 12738 was issued in the name of private respondent. In all these conveyances, the
area and boundaries of the property remained exactly the same as those appearing in Tax Declaration No. 2916
under petitioner's name.

It was proved at the proceedings in the court a quo that two (2) surveys were made of the disputed property. The
first survey 14 was made for petitioner, while the second was the relocation survey ordered by the lower court. As
anticipated, certain discrepancies between the two surveys surfaced. Thus, contrary to petitioner's allegation in his
complaint that he is the owner of only 3.2800 hectares, he was actually claiming 5.9789 hectares, the total areas of
Lot Nos. 3918, 3918-A and 3606. On the other hand, Lot No. 3479 pertaining to Espinosa, was left with only an area
of 4.1841 hectares instead of the 5.5 hectares sold by petitioner to him. Apprised of the discrepancy, private
respondent filed a protest 15 before the Bureau of Lands against the first survey, likewise filing a case for alteration
of boundaries before the municipal trial court, the proceedings of which, however, were suspended of the instant
case. 16

Private respondent testified that petitioner is one of the four heirs of his mother, Leonida Zaragoza. In the
Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of Estate of the deceased Leonida Zaragoza, 17 the heirs adjudicated unto
themselves the 3.6-hectare property of the deceased. The property involved is described in the instrument as having
been declared under Tax Declaration No. 3301 18 and as bounded on the North by Victor Verano, on the East by
Benigno Titong, on the South by the Bugsayon River and on the West by Benigno Titong. On September 9, 1969,
Tax Declaration No. 8723 was issued to petitioner for his corresponding share in the estate.

However, instead of reflecting only .9000 hectare as his rightful share in the extrajudicial settlement 19 petitioner's
share was bloated to 2.4 hectares. It therefore appeared to private respondent that petitioner encroached upon his
(Laurio's) property and declared it a part of his inheritance. 20 The boundaries were likewise altered so that it was
bounded on the North by Victor Verano, on the East by Benigno Titong, on the South by property owner Espinosa,
and on the West by property owner Adolfo Titong. 21 Private respondent accordingly denied that petitioner had
diverted the course of the Bugsayon River after he had repurchased the land from Concepcion Verano vda. de
Cabug 22 because the land was immediately sold to Espinosa shortly thereafter. 23

The lower court rendered a decision in favor of private respondents, declaring him as the true and absolute owner of
the litigated property and ordering petitioner to respect private respondents' title and ownership over the property
and to pay attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs and moral damages.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision. On motion for reconsideration, the same
was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

At the outset, we hold that the instant petition must be denied for the reason that the lower court should have
outrightly dismissed the complaint for quieting of title. The remedy of quieting of title may be availed of under the
circumstances enumerated in the Civil Code:

Art. 476. 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.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.

Under this provision, 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 owner's title to or interest in real property. 24
The ground or reason for filing a complaint for quieting of title must therefore be "an instrument, record, claim,

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111141_1998.html 25/09/2020, 8>48 PM

Page 2 of 7
encumbrance or proceeding." Under the maxim expresio mius est exclusio alterius, these grounds are exclusive so
that other reasons outside of the purview of these reasons may not be considered valid for the same action. 25

Had the lower court thoroughly considered the complaint filed, it would have had no other course of action under the
law but to dismiss it. The complaint failed to allege that an "instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding"
beclouded the plaintiff's title over the property involved. Petitioner merely alleged that the defendants (respondents
herein), together with their hired laborers and without legal justification, forcibly entered the southern portion of the
land of the plaintiff and plowed the same.

He then proceeded to claim damages and attorney's fees. He prayed that, aside from issuing a writ or preliminary
injunction enjoining private respondents and their hired laborers from intruding into the land, the court should
declare him "the true and absolute owner" thereof. Hence, through his allegations, what petitioner imagined as
clouds cast on his title to the property were private respondents' alleged acts of physical intrusion into his purported
property. Clearly, the acts alleged may be considered grounds for an action for forcible entry but definitely not one
for quieting of title.

When the issues were joined by the filing of the answer to the complaint, it would have become apparent to the
court that the case was a boundary dispute. The answer alleged, among other matters, that petitioner, "in bad faith,
surreptitiously, maliciously and fraudulently had the land in question included in the survey of his land which extends
to the south only as far as the Bugsayon River which is the visible and natural and common boundary between the
properties." 26 Moreover, during the hearing of the case, petitioner proved that it was actually a boundary dispute by
evidence showing what he considered as the boundary of his property which private respondents perceived as
actually encroaching on their property. In this regard, the following pronouncements of the Court are apropos:

. . . (T)he trial court (and likewise the respondent Court) cannot, in an action for quieting of title, order
the determination of the boundaries of the claimed property, as that would be tantamount to awarding
to one or some of the parties the disputed property in an action where the sole issue is limited to
whether the instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding involved constitutes a cloud upon
the petitioners' interest or title in and to said property. Such determination of boundaries is appropriate
in adversarial proceedings where possession or ownership may properly be considered and where
evidence aliunde, other than the "instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding" itself, may be
introduced. An action for forcible entry, whenever warranted by the period prescribed in Rule 70, or for
recovery of possession de facto, also within the prescribed period, may be availed of by the petitioners,
in which proceeding the boundary dispute may be fully threshed out. 27

Nonetheless, even if the complaint below were to be considered as a valid one for quieting of title, still, the instant
petition for review on certiorari must fail.

As a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon this Court. Such factual
findings shall not be disturbed normally unless the same are palpably unsupported by the evidence on record or the
judgment itself is based on a misapprehension of facts. 28 Upon an examination of the records, the Court finds no
evident reason to depart from the general rule.

The courts below correctly held that when petitioner "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, Espinosa's rights of ownership over the land ceased and were
transferred to private respondent upon its sale to the latter. This finds justification in the Civil Code, as follows:

Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the
ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money
or its equivalent.

A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.

In other words, a sale is a contract transferring dominion and other real rights in the thing sold. 29 In the case at bar,
petitioner's claim of ownership must of necessary fail because he has long abdicated his rights over the land when
he sold it to private respondent's predecessor-in-interest.

Petitioner's claim that he acquired ownership over the disputed land through possession for more than twenty (20)

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111141_1998.html 25/09/2020, 8>48 PM

Page 3 of 7
years is likewise unmeritorious. While Art. 1134 of the Civil Code provides that "(o)wnership and other real rights
over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years," this provision of
law must be read in conjunction with Art. 1117 of the same Code. This article states that ". . . (o)rdinary acquisitive
prescription of things requires possession in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law." Hence, a
prescriptive title to real estate is not acquired by mere possession thereof under claim of ownership for a period of
tea years unless such possession was acquired con justo tilulo y buena fe (with color of title and good faith). 30 The
good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the thing was
the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership. 31 For purposes of prescription, there is just title when the
adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the
acquisition of ownership or other real rights but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right. 32

Petitioners have not satisfactorily met the requirements of good faith and just title. As aptly observed by the trial
court, the plaintiff's admitted acts of converting 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." 33 To allow petitioner to benefit from his own wrong would run counter to the maxim ex dolo malo non
oritur actio (no man can allowed to found a claim upon his own wrongdoing). Extraordinary acquisitive prescription
cannot similarly vest ownership over the property upon petitioner. Art. 1137 of the Civil Code states that "(o)wnership
and other real rights over immovables prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years,
without need of title or of good faith." Petitioner's alleged possession in 1962 up to September 1983 when private
respondents entered the property in question spanned twenty-one (21) years. This period of time is short of the
thirty-year requirement mandated by Art. 1137.

Petitioner basically anchors his claim over the property on the survey plan prepared upon his request, 34 the tax
declaration in his name, 35 the commissioner's report on the relocation survey, 36 and the survey plan. 37
Respondent court correctly held that these documents do not conclusively demonstrate petitioner's title over Lot
Nos. 3918-A and 3606.

A survey is the act by which the quantity of a parcel of land is ascertained and so a paper containing a statement of
courses, distances, and quantity of
land. 38 A survey under a proprietary title is not a conveyance. It is an instrument sui generis in the nature of a
partition; a customary mode in which a proprietor has set off to himself in severalty a part of the common estate. 39
Therefore, a survey, not being a conveyance, is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A fortiori, petitioner cannot
found his claim on the survey plan reflecting a subdivision of land because it is not conclusive as to ownership as it
may refer only to a delineation of possession. 40

Furthermore, the plan was not verified and approved by the Bureau of Lands in accordance with Sec. 28, paragraph
5 of Act No. 2259, the Cadastral Act, as amended by Sec. 1862 of Act No. 2711. Said law ordains that private
surveyors send their original field notes, computations, reports, surveys, maps and plots regarding a piece of
property to the Bureau of Lands for verification and approval. 41 A survey plan not verified and approved by said
Bureau is nothing more than a private writing, the due execution and authenticity of which must be proven in
accordance with Sec. 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The circumstance that the plan was admitted in
evidence without any objection as to its due execution and authenticity does not signify that the courts shall give
probative value therefor. To admit evidence and not to believe it subsequently are not contradictory to each other.
This Court cannot alter the conclusions of
the Court of Appeals on the credibility accorded to evidence presented by the parties. 42

Similarly, petitioner's tax declaration issued under his name is not even persuasive evidence of his claimed
ownership over the land in dispute. A tax declaration, by itself, is not considered conclusive evidence of ownership.
43 It is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership. 44 Because it does not by itself give title, it is of little value in
proving one's ownership. 45 Moreover, the incompatibility in petitioner's tax declaration and the commissioner's
report as regards the area of his claimed property is much too glaring to be ignored. Tax Declaration No. 8717 states
that petitioner's property has an area of 3.2800 hectares while the totality of his claim according to the
commissioned geodetic engineer's survey amounts to 4.1385 hectares. There is therefore a notable discrepancy of
8,585 square meters. On the other hand, private respondent's claimed property, as borne out by Tax Declaration No.
12738, totals 5.5 hectares, a more proximate equivalent of the 5.2433-hectare property as shown by the
commissioner's report.

There is also nothing in the commissioner's report that substantiates petitioner's claim that the disputed land was

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111141_1998.html 25/09/2020, 8>48 PM

Page 4 of 7
inside his property. Petitioner capitalizes on the lower court's statement in its decision 46 that "as reflected in the
commissioner's report dated May 23, 1984 (Exhibit 3-3-A), the area claimed is inside lot 3918 of the defendants
(Exhibit 2)" 47 or the private respondents. A careful reading of the decision would show that this statement is found
in the summary of defendants' (herein private respondents) evidence. Reference to Lot No. 3918 may, therefore, be
attributed to mere oversight as the lower court even continues to state the defendants' assertion that the 2-hectare
land is part of their 5.5-hectare property. Hence, it is not amiss to conclude that either petitioner misapprehended the
lower court's decision or he is trying to contumaciously mislead or worse, deceive this Court.

With respect to the awards of moral damages of P10,000.00 and attorney's fees of P2,000.00, the Court finds no
cogent reason to delete the same. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings to the effect that where fraud and bad faith
have been established, the award of moral damages is in order. 48 This pronouncement finds support in Art. 2219
(10) of the Civil Code allowing the recovery of moral damages for acts enumerated in Art. 21 of the same Code. This
article states that "(a)ny person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." The moral damages are hereby
increased to P30,000.00. We agree with the respondent court in holding that the award of attorney's fees is justified
because petitioner filed a clearly unfounded civil action. 49

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED and the questioned Decision of the
Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. This Decision is immediately executory. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Kapunan and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Penned by Judge Manuel C. Genova.

2 Rollo, p. 17.

3 TSN, May 8, 1995, p. 4.

4 TSN, May 8, 1985, p. 6.

5 TSN, February 11, 1986, pp. 4-6.

6 Exh. 11.

7 Exhs. 11-A & 11-B.

8 Exh. 10.

9 Exhs. 8 & 8-A.

10 Exh. 7.

11 Exhs. 6 & 6-B.

12 Exh. 5.

13 He is described in the instrument as "married to Nelia Averilla."

14 Exh. B.

15 Exh. 15.

16 TSN, October 26, 1989, pp. 7-11, 45-49.

17 Exhs. 12 & 12-B.

18 Exh. 13.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111141_1998.html 25/09/2020, 8>48 PM

Page 5 of 7
19 Exh. 12-A.

20 TSN, October 26, 1989, p. 35.

21 Exh. 14-A.22 Exh. 8-B.

23 Exhs. 6 & 6-B.

24 Vda. de Aviles v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95748, November 21, 1996, 264 SCRA 473, 479.

25 Ibid., citing Lerum v. Cruz, 87 Phil. 652 (1950).

26 Ibid., p. 11.

27 Vda. de Aviles v. Court of Appeals, supra at p. 482.

28 Inland Trailways, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 457, 462 (1996); Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals,
323 Phil. 374, 383 (1996); Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118833, November
29, 1995, 250 SCRA 409, 414.

29 AQUINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. 3, 1990 ed., p. 1 citing Denoga v. Insular
Government, 19 Phil. 261 (1911).

30 Santiago v. Cruz, 19 Phil. 145 (1911).

31 Art. 1127, Civil Code.

32 Art. 1129, ibid.

33 Decision, p. 10.

34 Exh. B.

35 Exh. A.

36 Record, pp. 39-40.

37 Exh. C.

38 40A WORDS AND PHRASES 531 citing Miller v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., D.C. Va., 112 F. Supp.
221, 224.

39 Ibid., citing Jennings v. Burnham, 28 A. 1048, 56 N.J.L. 289, 291.

40 Heirs of George Bofill v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107930, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 451, 458.

41 Fige v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107951, June 30, 1994, 233 SCRA 586, 590.

42 Ledesma v. Realubin and Court of Appeals, 118 Phil. 625, 629 (1963).

43 Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 314 Phil. 57 (1995); Republic v. IAC, G.R. No. 74380, July 5, 1993, 224
SCRA 285, 296; De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57092, January 21, 1993, 217 SCRA 307,
317.

44 Director of Lands v. IAC, G.R. No. 73246, March 2, 1993, 219 SCRA 339, 348.

45 Sapu-an v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91869, October 19, 1992, 214 SCRA 701.

46 Decision, p. 6.

47 Petition, p. 9.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111141_1998.html 25/09/2020, 8>48 PM

Page 6 of 7
48 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109937, March 21, 1994, 231
SCRA 370, 377; Pasibigan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90169, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 202, 208; De
Guzman v. NLRC, G.R. No. 90856, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 723, 731.

49 Art. 2208 (4), Civil Code.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111141_1998.html 25/09/2020, 8>48 PM

Page 7 of 7