G.R. No. 544 : April 19, 1902
EDWIN H. WARNER, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF PASAY, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Edwin H. Warner initiated a proceeding under Title 14, Book 3 of the Law of Civil Procedure (the Code of Civil Procedure) for the survey and fixing of boundaries of a large estate known as the Pasay estate, covering approximately 480 hectares. The town of Pasay, including its streets, public squares, and buildings, is situated within this estate. The original complaint did not strictly comply with procedural requirements, as it failed to cite all interested persons. An amended complaint was filed, naming only adjacent property owners outside the estate’s perimeter. The Municipality of Pasay, though not cited, voluntarily appeared in the action, opposing the proceedings as the owner of the streets, squares, and other public lands within the estate. The judge, upon this opposition, dismissed the proceedings. Warner appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether a proceeding for the survey and designation of boundaries under Title 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an act of voluntary jurisdiction, can proceed when an opposition is filed by a party claiming ownership or possession of a part of the land to be surveyed, who is not an adjacent property owner.

RULING:
No. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the proceedings.
The proceeding for survey and designation of boundaries under Title 14 is an act of voluntary jurisdiction, the validity of which depends fundamentally on the consent of all parties in interest. The right to such a survey is granted by law to the owner of the property or one who holds a real right therein. If a person who is not the owner or possessor initiates the proceeding, it constitutes an unlawful interference with the possession and ownership of another.
The Court held that any person with a legitimate interest in the property, such as the owner or a possessor, is entitled to be cited and to oppose the proceeding under Article 1800 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such opposition converts the voluntary proceeding into a contentious suit, over which the court in a voluntary jurisdiction lacks authority to adjudicate questions of ownership or possession. The judge, upon a denial of ownership by an interested party, can only remit the parties to a regular contentious action.
The Court rejected the argument that only adjacent owners could make opposition under Article 2029. It ruled that Article 2029 is specific, while Article 1800 is general, and that the former does not deprive a non-adjacent owner or possessor, who has a direct interest in the land itself, of the right to oppose. In this case, the Municipality of Pasay, as the owner of the streets and public squares within the estate’s perimeter, was a party in interest with the right to oppose. Its opposition, based on its ownership, was sufficient to terminate the voluntary proceeding.
A dissenting opinion argued that the proceeding was solely for determining boundary lines and only adjacent owners were interested parties under the specific provisions of Article 2029. Since the Municipality did not own adjoining property, it had no right to oppose and suspend the entire proceeding.