LAW ON

PROPERTY
CASE REPORTING
By: ESPINOSA, VON LESLIE L.
ANASTACIA VDA. DE AVILES, ET AL., vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CAMILO AVILES
G.R. No. 95748. November 21, 1996
PANGANIBAN, J

FACTS:
• Plaintiffs aver that they are the actual possessors of a parcel of land, which is the
share of their father Eduardo Aviles and defendant Camilo Aviles from their
deceased parents;
• Property was mortgaged and foreclosed; Petitioner’s mother redeemed said
property and was declared under her name;
• Camilo Aviles asserted a color of title by constructing a bamboo fence thereby
molesting and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the
property;
• Plaintiff filed a special civil action for quieting of title
• Trial court dismiss the complaint;
• Court of Appeals affirmed said decision;
• Hence, this petition.
 ANASTACIA VDA. DE AVILES, ET AL., vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CAMILO AVILES
G.R. No. 95748. November 21, 1996
PANGANIBAN, J

ISSUE:
Whether or not Court of Appeals is correct when it opined that complaint of quieting
of title is not the proper remedy for this case.

HELD:
• The Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals.
• The facts presented unmistakably constitute a clear case of boundary dispute which
is not cognizable in a special civil action to quiet title.
• Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud or doubt with
respect to title of real property.
• Petition was DENIED and the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.
Thank you!