G.R. No. 216024 , September 18, 2019
Sps. Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Yu, Petitioners, vs. Eulogio A. Topacio, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Eulogio A. Topacio, Jr. filed an Amended Complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, Reconveyance and Damages against petitioners Sps. Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Yu. Topacio alleged he is the registered owner of Lot 7402-E covered by TCT No. T-348422. He claimed that the Yu spouses’ title, TCT No. T-490552, covering a 606-square meter portion of his lot, was spurious and cast a cloud on his title. The Yu spouses asserted ownership, having purchased the property from Sps. Martinez, who acquired it from the Bureau of Lands, and they caused a relocation survey, took possession, constructed a fence, and paid taxes. The RTC granted Topacio’s Motion for Joint Survey. A verification survey by the CENRO-DENR, led by Engr. Ramoncito Tañola, found that when plotted, the lots referenced different monuments and fell 1,526 meters apart, but the actual property occupied by the Yu spouses (450 sqm) was inside Topacio’s property. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding no proof of fraud in the Yu spouses’ title. The Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision, denying the quieting of title action but ordering the Yu spouses to vacate the portion of Topacio’s property they occupied, pay reasonable compensation, and pay attorney’s fees. The Yu spouses filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the location/boundary of the property in an action for quieting of title.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious error in relying on the verification survey conducted by Engr. Tañola of CENRO-DENR.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the CA Decision and Resolution with MODIFICATION.
1. On the first issue: The CA did not err. The CA was not contradicting itself by denying the action to quiet title while granting the action to recover possession. These are distinct causes of action with different requisites. For quieting of title, the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title and the cloud must be shown to be invalid. The CA found Topacio failed to prove the second requisite, as the Yu spouses’ title was not shown to be fraudulent. However, for recovery of possession, the plaintiff must prove ownership and the identity of the property. The CA, based on the verification survey report, found Topacio proved his ownership and that the land occupied by the Yu spouses was part of his titled property. Thus, the CA properly awarded possession.
2. On the second issue: The CA did not commit a serious error in relying on the verification survey. The survey was conducted by a government geodetic engineer from CENRO-DENR upon the RTC’s order, with all parties present and assisted by their own engineers. The survey report was detailed, explaining the discrepancy in tie lines and monuments used in the titles versus the actual ground verification, which found the Yu spouses’ improvements within Topacio’s lot. The Yu spouses’ claim that the survey was irregular was unsubstantiated.
Modification: The Supreme Court deleted the awards of reasonable compensation for use and occupation and attorney’s fees. The Yu spouses were not in bad faith, as they purchased the property, conducted a survey, and secured permits, believing they were the owners. Attorney’s fees require legal justification and are not awarded when no bad faith is present. The Court affirmed Topacio’s right to exercise his option under Article 448 of the Civil Code regarding the improvements built by the Yu spouses.