Titong v ca

Civil Law; Property; Quieting of Title; The ground or reason for filing a
complaint for quieting of title must be an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding.At the outset, we hold that the instant
petition must be denied for the reason that the lower court should have
outrightly dismissed the complaint for quieting of title. The remedy of
quieting of title may be availed of under the circumstances enumerated in
the Civil Code: 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. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being
cast upon title to real property or any interest therein. Under this provision,
a claimant must show that there is an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which constitutes or casts a cloud, doubt,
question or shadow upon the owners title to or interest in real property. The
ground or reason for filing a complaint for quieting of title must therefore be
an instrument, record, claim, 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.
Same; Same; Same; The acts alleged may be considered grounds for an
action for forcible entry but definitely not one for quieting of title.He
prayed that, aside from issuing a writ or preliminary injunction enjoining
private respondents and their hired laborers from intruding into the land, the
court should declare him the true and absolute owner thereof. Hence,
through his allegations, what petitioner imagined as clouds cast on his title
to the property were private respondents alleged acts of physical intrusion
into his purported property. Clearly, the acts alleged may be considered
grounds for an action for forcible entry but definitely not one for quieting of
title.
Same; Same; Prescription; A prescription title to real estate is not acquired
by mere possession thereof under claim of ownership for a period of ten
years unless such possession was acquired con justo titulo y buena fe (with
color of title and good faith).Petitioners claim that he acquired ownership
over the disputed land through possession for more than twenty (20) years is
likewise unmeritorious. While Art. 1134 of the Civil Code provides that

(o)wnership 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 x x x (o)rdinary acquisitive prescription of things requires
possession in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law. Hence,
a prescriptive title to real estate is not acquired by mere possession thereof
under claim of ownership for a period of ten years unless such possession
was acquired con justo titulo y buena fe (with color of title and good faith).
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. 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.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioners have not satisfactorily met the requirements
of good faith and just title.Petitioners have not satisfactorily met the
requirements of good faith and just title. As aptly observed by the trial court,
the plaintiffs admitted acts of converting the 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 petitioner to benefit from his own wrong would run
counter to the maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio (no man can be allowed
to found a claim upon his own wrongdoing). Extraordinary acquisitive
prescription cannot similarly vest ownership over the property upon
petitioner. Art. 1137 of the Civil Code states that (o)wnership and other real
rights over immovables prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession
thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith. Petitioners
alleged possession in 1962 up to September 1983 when private respondents
entered the property in question spanned twenty-one (21) years. This period
of time is short of the thirty-year requirement mandated by Art. 1137.
Same; Same; Same; A survey, not being a conveyance, is not a mode of
acquiring ownership.A survey is the act by which the quantity of a parcel of
land is ascertained and also a paper containing a statement of courses,
distances, and quantity of land. A survey under a proprietary title is not a
conveyance. It is an instrument sui generis in the nature of a partition; a
customary mode in which a proprietor has set off to himself in severalty a
part of the common estate. Therefore, a survey, not being a conveyance, is
not a mode of acquiring ownership. A fortiori, petitioner cannot found 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.
Same; Same; Same; A survey plan not verified and approved by the Bureau
of Lands is nothing more than a private writing, the due execution and
authenticity of which must be proven in accordance with Sec. 20 of Rule 132
of the Rules of Court.Furthermore, the plan was not verified and approved
by the Bureau of Lands in accordance with Sec. 28, paragraph 5 of Act No.
2259, the Cadastral Act, as amended by Sec. 1862 of Act No. 2711. Said law
ordains that private surveyors send their original field notes, computations,
reports, surveys, maps and plots regarding a piece of property to the Bureau
of Lands for verification and approval. A survey plan not verified and
approved by said Bureau is nothing more than a private writing, the due
execution and authenticity of which must be proven in accordance with Sec.
20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The circumstance that the plan was
admitted in evidence without any objection as to its due execution and
authenticity does not signify that the courts shall give probative value
therefor. To admit evidence and not to believe it subsequently are not
contradictory to each other. This Court cannot alter the conclusions of the
Court of Appeals on the credibility accorded to evidence presented by the
parties.
Same; Same; Ownership; A tax declaration, by itself, is not considered
conclusive evidence of ownership.Similarly, petitioners 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. It is merely an indicium of a
claim of ownership. Because it does not by itself give title, it is of little value
in proving ones ownership.