MARIO TITONG

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.

Titong asserts that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an

area of 3.2800 hectares and declared for taxation purposes. He claims that on
three separate occasions, private resps, with their hired laborers, forcibly
entered a portion of the land containing an approximate area of 2 hectares
and began plowing the same under pretext of ownership. On the other hand,
private resps denied the claim and said that the subject land formed part of
the 5.5 hectare agricultural land which they had purchased from their
predecessor-in-interest, Pablo Espinosa.
Titong identified Espinosa as the his adjoining owner asserting that no
controversy had sprouted between them for 20 years until the latter sold lot
3749 to V. Laurio. 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.

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.

Apprised of the discrepancy, private resps filed a protest before Bureau of

Lands against 1st survey, and filing a case for alteration of boundaries before
the MTC, proceedings of which were suspended because of instant case.
Private resps. Avers that Titong is one of the four heirs of his mother, Leonida
Zaragoza. In the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of Estate of late Zaragoza,
the heirs adjudicated unto themselves the 3.6 hectares property of the
deceased. The property was bounded by the north by Verano, on the east by
Bernardo Titong, on the south by the Bugsayon River and on the west by
Benigno Titong.
Instead of reflecting only .9000 hectares as his rightful share in the extrajud
settlement, Titong’s share bloated to 2.4 hectares. It then appeared to Laurio
that Titong encroached upon his property and declared it as part of his
inheritance.

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:

Whether or not Titong is the rightful owner of the subject property

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.

Forcible Entry and not quieting of title

In addition, the case was considered to be a boundary dispute.

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.

Thus, it is now a contract of sale wherein it is a contract transferring dominion

and other real rights in the thing sold.

How about Titong’s allegation that even if he is not the owner of the property,
he has acquired it by ordinary acquisitive prescription?

Titong cannot rely on the claim of prescription as ordinary acquisitive

prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for the time
fixed by law.

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.

So was Mario in good faith?

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

to found a claim upon his own wrongdoing).

Was there just title?

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.