Titong v CA

GR No 111141. 6 March 1988

4th Division. J. Romero
Quieting of Title
SUM: Titong filed an action for quieting of title over a 20000 sq m land. The land was adjudged in favor of respondents Lacerio. 

FACTS:
A 20,592 sq. m. parcel of land located at Barrio Titiong, Masbate is being claimed by 2
contestants. An action for quieting of title filed by petitioner Mario Titong (petitioner) against Victorico
Laurio and Angeles Laurio (private respondents).

Titong asserts:
- he is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area of 3.2800 hectares (ha) and
declared for taxation purposes.
- that on 3 separate occasions, private resps, with their hired laborers, forcibly entered a
portion of the land containing an approximate area of 2 ha. and began plowing it
Respondents Laurio assert:
- the subject land formed part of the 5.5 ha agricultural land which they had purchased from
their predecessor-in-interest, Pablo Espinosa
o Titong admits knowing Espinosa, being his adjoining owner.
- This 5.5 ha land is bounded on the North by the Bugsayon River; on the East by property
under the ownership of Lucio Lerit; on the South by property owned by Potenciano Zaragoza;
and on the West by property owned by Agapito de la Cruz.
- claims that the tax declaration made by Titong was actually for 5.5 ha., which was
subsequently sold to Espinosa, which was then acquired by respondents.
- Also claims that petitioner is one of the heirs of Leonida Zaragoza, who had 3.6 ha. He was to
claim 0.9 ha from the partition, but his share was bloated to 2.4 ha., and the bloating was
bloated to the prejudice of Respondents’ land.

Petitioner also claims that the boundary between the land sold to Espinosa and what remained
of Titong’s property was the old Bugsayon river. When Titong employed Lerit as his tenant, he instructed
the latter to change the course of the old river and direct the flow of water to the lowland at the
southern portion of Titong’s property, thus converting the old river into a Riceland.
During the proceedings, 2 surveys of the land were presented: one was from the petitioner,
while the other was ordered by the lower court. There were discrepancies between the two surveys,
showing that petitioner’s claim of 3.28 ha was actually for 5.9789 ha, thus leaving Espinosa’s lot with
only 4.1841 ha instead of 5.5 ha as sold by petitioner.
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.

ISSUES/HELD/RULING:
1. W/N the action for quieting of title should be granted – NO.
- The action should’ve outrightly dismissed the complaint for quieting of title, as the remedy of
quieting of title may only be availed of under the circumstances enumerated in Art 476.
- DOCTRINE: The ground or reason for filing a complaint for quieting of title must be an instrument,
record, claim or 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 may not be considered valid for the
same action.
Petitioner’s claims of ownership and how disputed by the Courts:
- Claim of ownership through ordinary acquisitive prescription after possession of 10 years only
happens with concurrence of the requisites of good faith and just title.
o As aptly observed by TC, plaintiffs acts of converting the boundary line (Bugsayon River) into a
ricefield and thereafter claiming ownership were acts constituting deprivation of the rights of
others and therefore tantamount to bad faith
- Extraordinary acquisitive prescription cannot similarly vest ownership as this requires 30 years (Art.
1137).
o Petitioner’s alleged possession in 1962 up to September 1983 when private respondents
entered the property in question spanned only 21 years. 
- A survey is not conveyance; it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. Petitioner can’t base 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.
o Also, a survey plan not verified and approved by Bureau of Lands is nothing more than a
private writing.
- 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.

JUDGMENT:
Petition DENIED and the questioned Decision of CA AFFIRMED.

Notes:

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.