Mario Titong vs CA, Victorio Laurio and Court of Appeals

Angeles Laurio
Affirmed RTC decision and on motion for
reconsideration denied for lack of merit
*case originated from an action for quieting of
title filed by petitioner Mario Titong
SC review on certiorari
- RTC ruled in favor of Laurios, adjudging them
Petition denied for the reason that the lower
as the true and lawful owners of the disputed
court should have OUTRIGHTLY
land
DISMISSED the complaint for QUIETING
- petitioner appeals for favorable reversal of Title

Two surveys were made of the disputed RULING:

property
Art. 476
 1st survey – made for Titong
 Remedy to be availed of in relation to
 2nd survey – relocation survey ordered by
quieting of title
the lower court
 “Whenever there is a cloud on title of real
Titong’s allegation in his complaint that he is the property or any interest therein, by
owner of only 3.28 hectares, contrary to what he reason of any:
was actually claiming, i.e., 5.9789 ha *record
On the other hand, land pertaining to Espinosa *claim
was left only with 4.1841 ha instead of 5.5 ha *encumbrance, or
sold by Titong to him. *proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective but
Apprised of the discrepancy, Laurio filed a protest is in truth and in fact invalid,
before the Bureau of Lands against the first ineffective, voidable, or
survey, likewise filing a case for alteration of unenforceable, and may be prejudicial
boundaries before the municipal court. to said title, an action may be brought to
REMOVE such cloud or to QUIET the
title.
According to Laurio: An action may also be brought to
Laurio is one of the 4 heirs of Leonida PREVENT a cloud from being cast upon
Zaragoza title to real property or any interest
Extrajudicial settlement with Sale of therein
Estate – heirs adjudicated unto  Claimant must show that there is an
themselves 3.6 ha property instrument, record, claim, encumbrance
Instead of reflecting only .9 ha as his or proceeding which constitutes or casts a
rightful share in the extrajudicial cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon
settlement, petitioner’s share was the owner’s title to or interest in real
bloated to 2.4 ha. property
It therefore appeared that Titong
encroached upon Laurio’s property and Complaint failed to alleger that an instrument,
declared it as part of his inheritance record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
He denied that Titong had diverted the beclouded the plaintiff’s title over the
course of the river after he had property involved.
repurchased the land from Concepcion
Verano, because the land was Petitioner merely alleged that the Laurio,
immediately sold to Espinosa together with their hired laborers and without
legal justification, forcibly entered the
Lower court: southern portion of the land of the Titong and
Decision in favor of Laurio plowed the same.
Titong claims that aside from issuing a Writ Art. 1134 must be read in conjunction with
or Preliminary injunction enjoining Laurio and Art. 1117
their hired laborers from intruding into the
land, the court should declare him the TRUE  Art. 1134 - "(o)wnership and other real rights
and ABSOLUTE owner over immovable property are acquired by
ordinary prescription through possession of ten
What Titong imagined as clouds cast on his years
title to the property were private  Art. 1117 - (o)rdinary acquisitive prescription
of things requires possession in good faith
respondent’s alleged acts of physical
and with just title for the time fixed by law
intrusion into his purported property
 this acts may be considered grounds for
 prescriptive title to real estate is not
an action for forcible entry but NOT
acquired by mere possession thereof
one for quieting of title
under claim of ownership for a period of
ten years unless such possession was
case was a boundary dispute
acquired con justo tilulo y buena fe (with
 Titong, in bad faith, surreptitiously,
color of title and good faith)
maliciously, and fraudulently had the land
in question included in the survey of his
 good faith of the possessor consists in the
land which extends to the south only as
reasonable belief that the person from whom
far as Bugsayon River which is the visible
he received the thing was the owner
and natural and common boundary
thereof, and could transmit his ownership
between the properties
 It is actually a boundary dispute by
 Petitioners have not satisfactorily met the
evidence showing what he considered as
requirements of good faith and just title.
boundary of his property which Laurios
perceived as actually encroaching on the  plaintiff's admitted acts of converting
property boundary line (Bugsayon River) into a
ricefield and thereafter claiming ownership
(T)he trial court (and likewise the thereof were acts constituting deprivation of
respondent Court) cannot, in an action for the rights of others and therefore "tantamount
quieting of title, order the determination to bad faith
of the boundaries of the claimed property,
 Extraordinary acquisitive prescription
as that would be tantamount to awarding
CANNOT similarly vest ownership over the
to one or some of the parties the disputed property upon petitioner
property in an action where the SOLE - Petitioner's alleged possession in 1962 up
ISSUE is limited to whether the to September 1983 when private
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance respondents entered the property in
or proceeding involved constitutes a question spanned twenty-one (21) years.
CLOUD upon the petitioners' interest or This period of time is short of the thirty-
title in and to said property year requirement mandated by Art.
1137.
action for forcible entry, whenever
 Petitioner basically anchors his claim over the
warranted by the period prescribed in Rule property on the
70, or for recovery of possession de facto, survey plan prepared upon his request, 
also within the prescribed period, may be the tax declaration in his name, 
availed of by the petitioners, in which the commissioner's report on the
proceeding the boundary dispute may be relocation survey, and
fully threshed out. the survey plan. 
Respondent court correctly held that these
Petitioner's claim that he acquired documents do not conclusively demonstrate
ownership over the disputed land through petitioner's title
possession for more than twenty (20)
years is likewise unmeritorious
SURVEY 
 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
 under a proprietary title is not a conveyance
 not being a conveyance, is not a mode of acquiring
ownership
 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

Tax declaration
 not even persuasive evidence of his claimed
ownership over the land in dispute
 merely an indicium of a claim of ownership
 it does not by itself give title, it is of little value
in proving one's ownership
 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

commissioner's report

 substantiates petitioner's claim that the

disputed land was inside his property
 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.
 either petitioner misapprehended the lower
court's decision or he is trying to
contumaciously mislead or worse, deceive this
Court