G.R. No. 172902 - Seneres vs. Sabido IX

The dispute involves a large tract of land in the barrio of Pinagsibaan, municipality of Rosario, Batangas, measuring 991 hectares, 41 ares, and 46 centiares, running approximately eleven kilometers from east to west and largely bounded by watercourses.
The land was originally in the possession of Celestino Solis, who died in 1874, after which the property was partitioned among his heirs by running north-south lines.

His daughters Petra and Gliceria were jointly allotted the easternmost parcel, measuring 69 hectares, 84 ares, and 54 centiares.
The other children—Filomena, Justa, Bernardo, Maria, Catalina, Marcelina, and Salvadora—received consecutively adjacent parcels, each measuring 115 hectares, 17 ares, and 12 centiares, with the parcel of Salvadora located at the western end of the tract.
Germana’s parcel was situated adjacent to that of Petra and Gliceria.

Although the boundaries may not have been officially determined by survey at the time, the respective heirs and their successors began occupying what they considered to be their portions, marking boundaries with monuments and fences.
In 1881, title documents were issued by composition gratuita, confirming the area measurements for the various parcels as outlined in the partition.

Through purchase and other means, the various parcels eventually came into the hands of the present litigants:

Defendants Leyesa possess the parcel originally assigned to Petra and Gliceria Solis.
Plaintiff Ramon Genato acquired Germana Solis’ parcel.
Plaintiff Catigbac holds the parcel of Filomena and Justa Solis.
Plaintiff Juan Reyes owns the parcel of Bernardo Solis.
Defendants Nicolas Olaguivel and Gutierrez Hermanos possess the remaining four parcels.

Plaintiff Catigbac found that his two parcels, which should total 230 hectares, actually measured only about 169 hectares.
Defendants Olaguivel and Gutierrez Hermanos, owning four parcels, were in possession of a total area exceeding the land indicated in their title documents.
Likewise, the defendants Leyesa in the eastern part of the tract appear to hold more area than the momentarily indicated boundaries allow, whereas the other plaintiffs, Juan Reyes and Ramon Genato, have areas approximately corresponding to their title documents.

The plaintiffs initiated an action for deslinde y amojonamiento, an ancient remedy intended to determine uncertain boundaries between adjoining lands.
The substantive right underlying this remedy is grounded in Article 384 of the Civil Code, stemming from the principle that where there is a right there is a corresponding legal remedy.
It is emphasized that the legal remedy of deslinde y amojonamiento is classically limited to demarcating uncertain boundary lines and does not extend to conferring new substantive rights or disturbing title acquired by prescription.

The evidence shows that the defendants—and their predecessors in interest—have exercised continuous and adverse possession over the lands for a period exceeding the statutory period required for prescription, thus solidifying their title and possession.
The dispute, therefore, is not merely over the physical demarcation of boundaries but is intrinsically linked to issues of title and right of possession.
Additionally, it is noted that plaintiff Catigbac’s property does not directly adjoin the land of any defendant, and the other plaintiffs do not seem to have a significant legal interest in the outcome of these boundary determinations.

Whether the remedy of deslinde y amojonamiento is applicable where the boundaries have, for a long time, been demarcated by monuments and fences and where adverse possession has operated to confer title.
Whether using such a remedial action can effectively override or alter substantive rights acquired through prescription.

Whether the plaintiffs have correctly established a cause of action for deslinde y amojonamiento based on their alleged uncertainty about boundaries, or whether in fact, the issue primarily involves questions of title and possession, which are subject to the statute of limitations as in ejectment cases.
Whether the plaintiffs possess any real, legally cognizable interest in having the boundaries redefined given that the actual possession and title have long been established by adverse acts.

Whether the defendants’ continuous, adverse possession, which has reached the period required for the acquisition of title by prescription, bars the plaintiff’s claim for a boundary determination that would affect established title.
Whether the remedy of deslinde may be used to recover possession or alter boundaries in cases where the adverse party’s title is already recognized by prescription.