G.R. No. 95748 November 21, 1996
ANASTACIA VDA. DE AVILES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CAMILO AVILES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Eduardo Aviles, filed a complaint for quieting of title against respondent Camilo Aviles. They alleged ownership and possession of a parcel of land since 1957, derived from a partition of their grandparents’ estate. They claimed that in March 1983, respondent disturbed their peaceful possession by constructing a fence and moving earthen dikes on a northern portion of approximately 1,200 square meters, asserting a color of title over it.
Respondent admitted the existence of the partition agreement but contended that the disputed portion was part of the 14,470 square meters allotted to him. He asserted that he was currently occupying less than his rightful share. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered the parties to engage a land surveyor to relocate the boundaries. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but reversed the survey order, ruling that a quieting of title action was improper for a boundary dispute and that an ejectment suit should have been filed instead.

ISSUE

Whether a special civil action for quieting of title is the proper remedy to settle a boundary dispute.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that an action for quieting of title is not the appropriate remedy for resolving a boundary dispute. The Court explained that the purpose of an action to quiet title is to secure a plaintiff against claims or encumbrances that may be used to threaten their title or interest in real property. It is designed to remove a cloud on title created by any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid but is actually invalid or unenforceable.
The core of the present case was a factual controversy over the precise location of a boundary line between adjacent properties derived from a partition. This is a dispute respecting the extent of ownership and possession, not the validity of an instrument casting a cloud on title. The proper remedy to settle such a dispute over physical possession and boundary lines is an adversarial action such as ejectment (forcible entry or unlawful detainer) or an accion reivindicatoria for recovery of ownership and possession, where evidence on possession and metes and bounds can be fully ventilated. The trial court, in a quieting of title suit, cannot order a determination of boundaries, as that would be tantamount to adjudicating possession or ownership, which is beyond the scope of such a special proceeding.