GR 111141; (March, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111141 March 6, 1998
MARIO Z. TITONG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (4th Division), VICTORICO LAURIO and ANGELES LAURIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mario Titong filed an action for quieting of title over a disputed parcel of land. He claimed ownership of an unregistered parcel, surveyed as Lot No. 3918, and alleged that private respondents Victorico and Angeles Laurio forcibly entered a portion of it in September 1983. Private respondents denied this, asserting they purchased the disputed 5.5-hectare property from Pablo Espinosa, who had purchased it from petitioner himself on August 28, 1962. The property’s area and boundaries remained consistent through a series of conveyances from petitioner to Concepcion Verano vda. de Cabug, back to petitioner, then to Espinosa, and finally to private respondents. Surveys revealed discrepancies: petitioner was actually claiming 5.9789 hectares, while the lot pertaining to Espinosa (Lot No. 3479) was left with only 4.1841 hectares instead of the 5.5 hectares sold. Private respondents contended petitioner encroached on their property by including part of it in his inheritance from his mother’s estate, altering the boundaries. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring them the true owners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint for quieting of title was proper, and ultimately, who has a better claim to the disputed property.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the complaint for quieting of title should have been outrightly dismissed by the lower court. An action for quieting of title requires an “instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding” casting a cloud on title. Petitioner’s complaint merely alleged acts of physical intrusion, which constitute grounds for forcible entry, not quieting of title. The case was, in substance, a boundary dispute, which is not the proper subject of a quieting of title action. Nonetheless, even if treated as a valid action, the petition would fail. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts, which were supported by evidence. The courts correctly held that when petitioner sold the 5.5-hectare land to Espinosa, he transferred all his rights thereto. Petitioner could not claim a larger area than what he sold. The consistent area and boundaries in the tax declarations through the conveyances supported private respondents’ claim. The Court increased the award of moral damages to P30,000.00 and upheld the award of attorney’s fees as petitioner filed a clearly unfounded action.