G.R. No. L-9717; July 21, 1915
JOSE ARGUELLES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TORIBIA MONTALVO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The properties of plaintiff Jose Arguelles and defendant Toribia Montalvo are adjacent. A dispute arose over a strip of land measuring 4 meters by 7.10 meters, valued at P200, which the defendant took possession of. The plaintiff filed an action to recover ownership and possession of the disputed strip, claiming indemnity for losses and damages amounting to P100. The core issue was factual: determining the true boundary line between the two lots. The plaintiff asserted that the fence he built on the northern boundary of his lot was erected on the remains of an old fence that historically marked the dividing line. He supported his claim with his own testimony, the testimonies of witnesses Graciano Babao and Gavino del Rosario, and his property titles (Exhibits A, B, and C). The defendant did not present her property titles despite the plaintiff’s request. The Court of First Instance of Batangas ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to restore possession of the land and pay damages.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court correctly ruled that the disputed strip of land is part of the plaintiff’s property, based on the preponderance of evidence establishing the boundary line.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the question was purely factual and found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings. The preponderance of evidence supported the plaintiff’s claim. It was proven that the plaintiff’s new fence was built on the line of the old fence, to which the defendant had never previously objected. The plaintiff’s property titles described the dimensions of his land, and the defendant’s act of cutting off a 4-meter strip would unlawfully reduce the plaintiff’s frontage. In an action equivalent to one for fixing boundaries, the law prescribes that boundaries shall be fixed according to the titles of each owner (Civil Code, Article 385). The defendant’s failure to present her titles to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence was significant. Furthermore, every owner has the right to enclose their property (Civil Code, Article 388), which the plaintiff did by planting a hedge along the established line. The award of damages was also supported by evidence. The appealed judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.