Case Summary (G.R. No. 138984)
Key Dates
• June 8, 1957 – Agreement of partition executed among heirs
• March 23, 1983 – Alleged encroachment by Camilo Aviles on disputed portion
• December 29, 1987 – RTC decision dismissing quieting-of-title complaint and ordering boundary survey
• September 28, 1990 – Court of Appeals decision affirming dismissal and setting aside survey order
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution – due process and property protections
• Civil Code, Art. 476 – remedy of quieting of title to remove clouds on real-property title
• Rules of Court, Rule 64 – declaratory relief (including quieting of title)
• Rules of Court, Rule 70 – ejectment and forcible entry and unlawful detainer
Facts
• The petitioners, as heirs of Eduardo Aviles, have possessed since 1957 an 18,900-sqm fishpond, cogonal, unirrigated rice and residential land bounded north by Camilo Aviles.
• Eduardo Aviles mortgaged the land to two banks; on foreclosure and auction, petitioners’ mother redeemed and transferred the property into her name.
• A 1957 partition agreement allocated 14,470 sqm to Camilo and larger shares to his brothers. Camilo admitted the agreement but later allegedly moved earthen dikes and erected a bamboo fence in 1983, disturbing petitioners’ possession of some 1,200 sqm.
Procedural History
• Petitioners filed a Rule 64 action for quieting of title in the RTC to remove respondent’s alleged cloud.
• RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, ordered a Bureau of Lands survey to demarcate Camilo’s 14,470-sqm share, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs in favor of Camilo.
• On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but reversed the survey-order, holding quieting of title improper for boundary disputes.
Issues
- Is a special civil action for quieting of title the proper remedy for settling a boundary dispute?
- Should the courts have declared the respective rights of the parties over the disputed property?
Ruling on the First Issue: Proper Remedy
• Quieting of title under Art. 476 Civil Code is designed to remove or prevent clouds on title arising from instruments, claims, or proceedings that are apparently valid but in law invalid or unenforceable.
• Here, neither the partition agreement nor the redemption deed cast a cloud; the dispute concerns the precise boundary line, not the validity of title documents.
• Precedents (Ashurst v. McKenzie; Kilgannon v. Jenkinson) hold that boundary disputes must be resolved by ejectment or possessory remedies, not by quieting title.
Ruling on
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 138984)
Facts
- Petitioners, heirs of Eduardo Aviles, claimed actual, open, continuous, peaceful and adverse possession of an 18,900 m² parcel in Malawa, Lingayen, Pangasinan (fishpond, cogonal, unirrigated rice and residential land; Tax Decl. No. 31446).
- The parcel formed part of the estate of Ireneo Aviles and Anastacia Salazar; Eduardo Aviles had possessed it since 1957 and mortgaged it to Rural Bank and PNB Lingayen, indicating boundary limits by existing dikes with no objection by adjoining owners.
- Upon foreclosure, petitioners’ mother redeemed the property and declared it in her name.
- A 1957 partition agreement among Eduardo, Anastacio and Camilo Aviles allocated 16,111 m² to Eduardo, 16,214 m² to Anastacio, and 14,470 m² to Camilo. Camilo later occupied only 12,686 m² but held tax declarations for 14,470 m² (riceland 13,290 m²; fishpond 500 m²; residential 680 m²).
- On March 23, 1983, Camilo allegedly moved earthen dikes and erected a bamboo fence over approximately 1,200 m² of petitioners’ area, prompting the quieting‐of‐title suit.
Procedural History
- Trial Court (RTC, Branch 38, Lingayen) dismissed the quieting‐of‐title complaint (Dec. 29, 1987), ordered a Bureau of Lands survey to fix the defendant’s southern