Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MArio Digest
MArio Digest
BUGSAYON RIVER
ESPINOSA LAURIO
TITONG v. CA
For one to file an action to quiet title to a parcel of land, the requisites in Art
476 of the NCC must be complied with meaning there should be an
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance setting forth the cloud or doubt over
the title. Otherwise, the action to be filed can either be ejectment, forcible
entry, unlawful detainer, accion reivindicatoria or accion publiciana.
FACTS:
A 20,592 square meter parcel of land located at Barrio Titiong, Masbate is the
subject property being disputed in this case. The property is being claimed by
2 contestants, however legal title over the property can only be given to one of
them.
The case originated from an action for quieting of title filed by petitioner Mario
Titong. The RTC of Masbate decided in favor of private respondents, Vicente
Laurio and Angeles Laurio as the true and lawful owners of the disputed land.
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Private resps, on the other hand, denied claim of Titong’s, saying that the
area and boundaries of disputed land remained unaltered during the series of
conveyances prior to its coming into his hands. Accdg to him, Titong first
declared land for taxation purposes which showed that the land had an area
of 5.5 hectares and was bounded on the north by the B. River; on the east by
property under ownership by Zaragoza, and on the west by property owned
by De la Cruz. He also alleges that Titong sold property to Verano. The latter
reacquired the property pursuant to mutual agreement to repurchase the
same.
However, the property remained in Titong’s hands only for 4 days because he
sold it to Espinosa. It then became a part of the estate of Espinosa’s wife, late
Segundina Espinosa. Later on, her heirs executed an “Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale” whereby the 5.5 hectares was
sold to Laurio for 5,000 pesos. In all these conveyances, the area and
boundaries of the property remained exactly the same as those appearing in
the name of Titong’s.
The court found out that 2 surveys were made of the property. First survey
was made by Titong, while the second was the relocation survey ordered by
the lower court. Because of which, certain discrepancies surfaced. Contrary to
Titong’s allegation, he was actually claiming 5.9789 hectares, the total areas
of lot nos 3918, 3918-A and 3606. The lot 3479 pertaining to Espinosa’s was
left with only an area of 4.1841 hectares instead of the 5.5 hectares sold by
Titong to him.
The boundaries were likewise altered so that it was bounded on the north by
Verano, on the east by B. Titong, on the south by Espinosa and on the west
by Adolfo Titong. Laurio also denied that Titong diverted course of the B. river
after he had repurchased the land from Verano because land was
immediately sold to Espinosa thereafter.
ISSUE:
RULING: NO
The remedy for quieting of title may be availed of under the circumstances
mentioned in Art 476 of the NCC wherein it says that action to quiet title may
be made as a remedial or preventive measure. Under 476, a claimant must
show that there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
which casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon owner’s title to or
interest in real property. The ground for filing a complaint for quieting title must
be “instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding.”
In the case at bar, Titong failed to allege that there was an instrument, claim
etc be clouded over his property. Through his allegations, what Titong
imagined as clouds cast on his title were Laurio’s alleged acts of physical
intrusion into his purported property. The grounds mentioned are for action for
forcible entry and not quieting title.
The RTC and CA correctly held that when Titong sold the 5.5 hectare land to
Espinosa, his rights and possession ceased and were transferred to Laurio
upon its sale to the latter.
How about Titong’s allegation that even if he is not the owner of the property,
he has acquired it by ordinary acquisitive prescription?
The court held that While Art. 1134 of the Civil Code provides that "ownership 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 ". . . ordinary acquisitive prescription of things
requires possession in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law."
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.
No. Mario’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." To allow him to benefit from his own
wrong would run counter to the maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio (no man can allowed
NO. 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.