Case Summary (G.R. No. 115838)
Key Dates
Trial court decision: December 29, 1987.
Court of Appeals decision: September 28, 1990.
Supreme Court decision: November 21, 1996.
(1987 Constitution applies as the decision date is after 1990.)
Applicable Law and Authorities
- 1987 Constitution (applicable as decision post-1990).
- Civil Code Article 476 (action to quiet title / remove clouds on title).
- Rule 64, Section 1, Rules of Court (declaratory relief, including actions to quiet title under specified conditions).
- Rule 70 (forcible entry and unlawful detainer principles referenced as alternative remedies).
- Precedents and authorities cited: Ashurst v. McKenzie (1890), Kilgannon v. Jenkinson (1883), Lerum v. Cruz (87 Phil. 652, 1950), and Bautista v. Exconde (1940) as relied upon or discussed in the decision.
Facts (Essentials)
- Parties are heirs of Ireneo Aviles and Anastacia Salazar who partitioned parental lands by agreement dated June 8, 1957. The total estate measured 46,795 square meters with allotted shares: Eduardo (petitioners’ predecessor) ~16,111 sqm; Anastacio ~16,214 sqm; Camilo (respondent) ~14,470 sqm.
- Eduardo Aviles possessed the property since 1957, mortgaged it, and upon foreclosure the mortgage was redeemed by petitioners’ mother and title declared in her name.
- Petitioners allege continuous, open, actual possession as heirs of Eduardo. In March 1983 Camilo allegedly asserted color of title over a northern portion (~1,200 sqm) by erecting a bamboo fence and moving earthen dikes, thereby disturbing petitioners’ possession.
- Camilo admits the partition agreement but contends measurements had been agreed and that the portion in dispute is part of his allotted share; tax declarations were introduced showing his declared area as 14,470 sqm. Camilo also disputes the claim of encroachment, asserting maintenance of an existing fence.
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed an action for quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Lingayen.
- RTC (Dec. 29, 1987) dismissed the complaint for lack of basis but ordered the parties to employ a Bureau of Lands land surveyor to relocate and determine the defendant’s southern boundary to fix his 14,470 sqm allotment; RTC awarded attorney’s fees and costs to defendant.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but reversed and set aside the trial court’s order directing the land surveyor, holding that quieting of title is not the proper remedy for a boundary dispute and that an ejectment action would have been appropriate. Costs were imposed on plaintiffs-appellants.
- Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether a special civil action for quieting of title under Rule 64 is the proper remedy to settle a boundary dispute.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred by not fully determining and declaring the respective rights of the parties over the disputed property.
Supreme Court Holding (Disposition)
The petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision: the complaint for quieting of title was properly dismissed as not the appropriate remedy for a boundary dispute, and the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial court’s order directing a Bureau of Lands surveyor. Costs were imposed on petitioners.
Reasoning — Quieting of Title vs. Boundary Dispute
- The Court observed that an action to quiet title (Art. 476 Civil Code) is intended to remove a cloud cast by an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid but in truth invalid, voidable, or ineffective. Quieting targets legal or documentary clouds on title, not disputes about the geographical location of boundary lines.
- The partition agreement and the deed of sale (redemption) produced by the parties did not constitute a cloud upon petitioners’ title. Both sides admitted the partition agreement and the dispute centered on whether lands were properly measured and where the true boundary line lies. That is a boundary controversy, not an action to remove a documentary cloud.
- The Court relied on analogous authorities (Ashurst v. McKenzie and Kilgannon v. Jenkinson) to reiterate that when the core dispute is the precise location of an original boundary line and titles or papers of neither party fix the line, a suit to quiet title is inappropriate because there is no muniment or paper that casts a proper cloud to be removed by the court’s decree.
Reasoning — Declaratory Relief and Court’s Power to Determine Rights
- Rule 64, Section 1 prescribes an exclusive list of who may file for declaratory relief and the subject matters that may be decided (e.g., interests arising under a deed, will, contract, statute, or an action to quiet title to remove a cloud). The Court stressed that this enumeration is exclusive (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).
- The Court concluded that even if petitioners attempted to frame their quieting action as one under Rule 64, their subject matter was a boundary dispute, not a controversy properly arising under a deed, will, contract or statute that would warrant declaratory relief. Consequently, declaratory relief under Rule 64 would not lie.
- The Court further explained that a trial court in a quieting action cannot properly undertake to determine and fix boundaries because that would amount to awarding disputed property in a proce
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 115838)
Case Title, Citation, and Forum
- Reported as 332 Phil. 513, Third Division, G.R. No. 95748, dated November 21, 1996.
- Parties: Anastacia Vda. de Aviles, et al., petitioners; Court of Appeals and Camilo Aviles, respondents.
- Decision authored by Justice Panganiban; concurrence noted by Justices Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and Francisco, JJ., with prior Thirteenth Division composition for the Court of Appeals decision given as J. Jainal D. Rasul (ponente), and JJ. Manuel C. Herrera and Eduardo R. Bengzon, concurring.
- Trial court below: Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Lingayen, Pangasinan, presided by Judge Antonio M. Belen.
Procedural Posture
- Petition is a petition to review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 28, 1990 in CA-G.R. CV No. 18155.
- The Court of Appeals had affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for quieting of title but reversed and set aside the portion ordering a survey to determine the defendant’s southern boundary and area.
- The trial court’s decision being appealed from was dated December 29, 1987, which had: (1) ordered parties to employ a Bureau of Lands land surveyor to relocate and determine the defendant’s southern boundary and area; (2) dismissed the complaint for lack of basis and merits; (3) ordered plaintiffs to pay defendant P2,000 attorney’s fees and costs; and (4) denied all other claims for lack of basis.
Facts (as found by respondent Court, stripped of unnecessary verbiage)
- Plaintiffs (petitioners) alleged they were actual possessors of a parcel in Malawa, Lingayen, Pangasinan described as fishpond, cogonal, unirrigated rice and residential land, bounded on the north by Camilo Aviles; east by Malawa River; south by Anastacio Aviles; west by Juana and Apolonio Joaquin, area 18,900 square meters, under Tax Declaration No. 31446.
- The property represented the share of Eduardo Aviles (petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest) in the estate of deceased parents, Ireneo Aviles and Anastacia Salazar.
- Eduardo Aviles had been in actual possession since 1957; he mortgaged the property to the Rural Bank and Philippine National Bank, Lingayen, and during inspection pointed to existing earthen dikes as boundaries without objection from adjacent owners (including defendant Camilo Aviles).
- The mortgage foreclosed and property was sold at public auction, but it was redeemed by the plaintiffs’ mother and later transferred and declared in her name.
- On March 23, 1983, defendant Camilo Aviles allegedly asserted color of title over the northern portion, approx. 1,200 square meters, by erecting a bamboo fence and moving earthen dikes, thereby disturbing plaintiffs’ peaceful possession.
- Defendant Camilo Aviles admitted the Agreement of Partition (Exh. a1a) executed by him and his brothers Anastacio and Eduardo, which divided the parental property totaling 46,795 square meters.
- According to the agreement, Eduardo’s allotted area was 16,111 sq.m. (more or less), Anastacio’s 16,214 sq.m. (more or less), and Camilo’s 14,470 sq.m. (more or less).
- The portions were allegedly measured before execution of the agreement; Camilo claimed he was not present during measurement and accepted a smaller area at Eduardo’s request.
- At the time of litigation, Camilo was occupying only 12,686 sq.m., less than his allotted 14,470 sq.m.; his tax declarations (Nos. 23575, 481, and 379) from 1958 show his property area as 14,470 sq.m. (riceland 13,290; fishpond 500; residential 680).
- The topography varied such that the height of pilapils differed across his land.
Pleadings, Relief Sought, and Trial Court Disposition
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint for quieting of title seeking vindication of their title/possession over the disputed portion.
- Trial court’s disposition (Dec. 29, 1987) ordered: use of a Bureau of Lands surveyor to relocate and determine defendant’s southern boundary so the 14,470 sq.m. allotment to defendant might be ascertained; dismissed the complaint for lack of basis and merits; awarded P2,000 attorney’s fees to defendant and costs; denied other claims.
Court of Appeals Decision (as affirmed in part)
- Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.
- Court of Appeals held that a special civil action for quieting of title is not the proper remedy to resolve a boundary dispute; an ejectment action should have been filed instead.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court’s order requiring the parties to employ a land surveyor to relocate and determine defendant’s southern boundary and the 14,470 sq.m. allotment.
- Costs were assessed against plaintiffs-appellants.
Issues Raised in the Petition to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the complaint for quieting of title was not the proper remedy and that instead ejectment should have been pursued.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rendering its decision without fully determining the respective rights of the parties over the disputed property.
Petitioners’ Contentions (as presented in source)
- Petitioners insist the Cour