G.R. No. 74287. October 27, 1989.
SPOUSES AGUSTIN FLORES and PURITA M. FLORES, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and SALVADOR, MILAGROS and CONRADA, all SURNAMED NICO, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves a boundary dispute between the owners of adjoining unregistered lots in Miag-ao, Iloilo. Private respondents, the NICOS, own Assessor’s Lot No. 71, claiming an area of 689 square meters. Petitioners, the FLORESES, own the adjacent Assessor’s Lot No. 72, claiming an area of 3,173 square meters. In 1975 and 1978, the FLORESES constructed fences to separate the properties. The NICOS protested, alleging the fences encroached upon a portion of their land, and subsequently filed an action for recovery of real property with damages. The trial court dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaim, finding neither party sufficiently established ownership over the disputed portion.
On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the trial court, declaring the NICOS as owners of a disputed portion initially estimated at 222 square meters and ordering the FLORESES to demolish the encroaching fence. The Supreme Court initially denied the FLORESES’ petition but, upon motion for reconsideration, remanded the case to the Appellate Court for an exact determination of the disputed area. The Appellate Court issued an Amended Decision, modifying the disputed area to 199 square meters but maintaining its ruling in favor of the NICOS.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in declaring the NICOS as the exclusive owners of the entire 199-square-meter disputed portion.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the Appellate Court’s decision. The legal logic centered on the burden of proof in an action for recovery of ownership under Article 434 of the Civil Code. The Court held that in such an action, the claimant must prove both ownership of the property and the identity thereof. Reviewing the evidence, particularly the Commissioner’s Report (Exhibit “N”) and plan (Exhibit “N-1”), the Court found that neither the NICOS nor the FLORESES had convincingly proven their exclusive entitlement to the entire 199-square-meter disputed area or definitively established the true boundary line between their lots. The NICOS’s claim of acquisitive prescription, based on possession since 1936 and planting trees, was deemed insufficient to delineate specific boundaries. Similarly, the sketch plans and bamboo fences presented did not conclusively prove ownership or a clear dividing line.
Consequently, the Supreme Court applied an equitable solution, dividing the disputed 199-square-meter area equally between the parties, with each receiving 99.5 square meters. This resulted in the NICOS owning a total of 518.5 square meters (their uncontested 419 sqm plus 99.5 sqm) and the FLORESES owning 2,982.5 square meters (their uncontested 2,883 sqm plus 99.5 sqm). The FLORESES were ordered to demolish their concrete fence at their own expense and adjust it to the new boundary, with survey expenses to be shared equally.