G.R. No. 48959 ; February 11, 1944
JOSE DIAZ and ESCOLASTICA SULIT, petitioners, vs. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a boundary dispute between two neighboring families in San Mateo, Rizal, over a strip of land approximately 26 meters long and 1.13 meters wide located between their houses. The plaintiff, Vicente del Rosario, and the defendants, Escolastica Sulit and her son Jose Diaz, had lived in harmony for generations without a clear boundary marker. The plaintiff’s house, built around 1872, was constructed so that rainwater from its roof fell onto the disputed strip. The defendants’ house, built in 1933, had eaves that overlapped those of the plaintiff’s house. The defendants’ entrance to their premises was through the disputed strip, and a concrete platform for their stairway and a camarin (shed) covered portions of it. During the construction of the defendants’ new house in 1933, the plaintiff accommodated the defendants in his home and did not object to the construction. The trial court divided the strip lengthwise, awarding one half to each party and ordering both to respect the existing constructions. The Court of Appeals initially awarded the entire strip to the defendants by prescription but later modified its judgment, awarding specific portions covered by the defendants’ platform and camarin to them, and the rest to the plaintiff, subject to an easement of right of way for the defendants. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

To whom does the ownership of the disputed strip of land belong?

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court. Applying Article 386 of the Civil Code, the Court held that since the titles of the parties did not fix the boundaries and the question could not be decided by possession or other means of proof, the demarcation should be made by dividing the land in dispute into equal parts. The Court found that the use of the strip by both parties was based on mutual tolerance due to their longstanding amicable relations, not on adverse possession. The fact that the plaintiff’s house was built so that rainwater fell on the strip was not conclusive of ownership, as it could have been tolerated by the defendants, just as the defendants’ constructions and passage were tolerated by the plaintiff. The rights of the parties were to remain as they had always been, with the strip divided equally, and the easements previously enjoyed by both parties were to remain unaffected.