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.

ROMERO, J.:

Like a priceless treasure coveted by many, but capable of ownership by only one, this 20,592 square-
meter parcel of land located at Barrio Titong, Masbate, Masbate is claimed by two contestants in
this petition for review on certiorari. Unfortunately, legal title over the property can be vested in
only one of them.

The case originated from an action for quieting of title filed by petitioner Mario Titong. The Regional
Trial Court of Masbate, Masbate, Branch 44 1 ruled in of private respondents, Victorico Laurio and
Angeles Laurio, adjudging them the true and lawful owners of the disputed land. Affirmed on appeal
to the Court, of Appeals, petitioner comes to us for a favorable reversal.

Petitioner alleges that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area of 3.2800
hectares, more or less, surveyed as Lot No. 3918, and declared for taxation purposes in his name. He
claims that on three separate occasions in September 1983, private respondents, with their hired
laborers, forcibly entered a portion of the land containing an area of approximately two (2) hectares;
and began plowing the same under pretext of ownership. Private respondents denied this allegation,
and averred that the disputed property formed part of the 5.5-hectare agricultural land which they
had purchased from their predecessor-in-interest, 2 Pablo Espinosa on August 10, 1981.

In his testimony, petitioner identified Espinosa as his adjoining owner 3, asserting that no
controversy had sprouted between them for twenty years until the latter sold Lot No. 3479 to
private respondent Victorico Laurio. 4 This was corroborated by Ignacio Villamor, who had worked
on the land even before its sale to Espinosa in 1962. The boundary between the land sold to
Espinosa and what of petitioner's property was the old Bugsayon river. When petitioner employed
Bienvenido Lerit as his tenant in 1962, he instructed Lerit to change the course of the old river and
direct the flow of water to the lowland at the southern of petitioner' s property, thus converting the
old river into a riceland. 5

For his part, private respondent anchors his defense on the following facts: He denied petitioner's
claim of ownership, recounting that the area and boundaries of the disputed land remained
unaltered during the series of conveyances prior to its coming into his hands. According to him,
petitioner first declared the land for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 2916, 6 which
showed that the land had an area of 5.5 hectares and was bounded on the North by the Bugsayon
River; on the East by property under the ownership of Lucio Lerit; on the South by property owner
by Potenciano Zaragoza; and on the West by property owned by Agapito de la Cruz. 7 Private
Respondent then alleges that, on December 21, 1960, petitioner sold this property to Concepcion
Verano vda. de Cabug, after which Tax Declaration No. 5339 8 was issued in her favor. In compliance
with their mutual agreement to repurchase the same, petitioner reacquired the property by way of
sale 9 on August 24, 1962 and then declared it for taxation purposes in his name under Tax
Declaration No. 5720. 10 However, the property remained in petitioner's hands for only four (4) days
because, on August 28, 1962, he sold it to Espinosa 11 who then declared it in his name under Tax
Declaration No. 12311. 12 Consequently, the property became a part of the estate of Pablo
Espinosa's wife, the late Segundina Liao Espinosa. On August 10, 1981, her heirs executed an
instrument denominated as "Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale" whereby the
5.5-hectare property under Tax Declaration No. 12311 was sold to private respondent 13 in
consideration of the amount of P5,000.00. Thereafter, Tax Declaration No. 12738 was issued in the
name of private respondent. In all these conveyances, the area and boundaries of the property
remained exactly the same as those appearing in Tax Declaration No. 2916 under petitioner's name.

It was proved at the proceedings in the court a quo that two (2) surveys were made of the disputed
property. The first survey 14 was made for petitioner, while the second was the relocation survey
ordered by the lower court. As anticipated, certain discrepancies between the two surveys surfaced.
Thus, contrary to petitioner's allegation in his complaint that he is the owner of only 3.2800
hectares, he was actually claiming 5.9789 hectares, the total areas of Lot Nos. 3918, 3918-A and
3606. On the other hand, Lot No. 3479 pertaining to Espinosa, was left with only an area of 4.1841
hectares instead of the 5.5 hectares sold by petitioner to him. Apprised of the discrepancy, private
respondent filed a protest 15 before the Bureau of Lands against the first survey, likewise filing a
case for alteration of boundaries before the municipal trial court, the proceedings of which,
however, were suspended of the instant case. 16

Private respondent testified that petitioner is one of the four heirs of his mother, Leonida Zaragoza.
In the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of Estate of the deceased Leonida Zaragoza, 17 the heirs
adjudicated unto themselves the 3.6-hectare property of the deceased. The property involved is
described in the instrument as having been declared under Tax Declaration No. 3301 18 and as
bounded on the North by Victor Verano, on the East by Benigno Titong, on the South by the
Bugsayon River and on the West by Benigno Titong. On September 9, 1969, Tax Declaration No. 8723
was issued to petitioner for his corresponding share in the estate.

However, instead of reflecting only .9000 hectare as his rightful share in the extrajudicial
settlement 19 petitioner's share was bloated to 2.4 hectares. It therefore appeared to private
respondent that petitioner encroached upon his (Laurio's) property and declared it a part of his
inheritance. 20 The boundaries were likewise altered so that it was bounded on the North by Victor
Verano, on the East by Benigno Titong, on the South by property owner Espinosa, and on the West
by property owner Adolfo Titong. 21 Private respondent accordingly denied that petitioner had
diverted the course of the Bugsayon River after he had repurchased the land from Concepcion
Verano vda. de Cabug 22 because the land was immediately sold to Espinosa shortly thereafter. 23

The lower court rendered a decision in favor of private respondents, declaring him as the true and
absolute owner of the litigated property and ordering petitioner to respect private respondents' title
and ownership over the property and to pay attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs and moral
damages.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision. On motion for
reconsideration, the same was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

At the outset, we hold that the instant petition must be denied for the reason that the lower court
should have outrightly dismissed the complaint for quieting of title. The remedy of quieting of title
may be availed of under the circumstances enumerated in the Civil Code:

Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein,
by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable,
 or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any
interest therein.

Under this provision, a claimant must show that there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance
or proceeding which constitutes or casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon the owner's title
to or interest in real property. 24 The ground or reason for filing a complaint for quieting of title
must therefore be "an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding." Under the
maxim expresio mius est exclusio alterius, these grounds are exclusive so that other reasons outside
of the purview of these reasons may not be considered valid for the same action. 25

Had the lower court thoroughly considered the complaint filed, it would have had no other course of
action under the law but to dismiss it. The complaint failed to allege that an "instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding" beclouded the plaintiff's title over the property involved.
Petitioner merely alleged that the defendants (respondents herein), together with their hired
laborers and without legal justification, forcibly entered the southern portion of the land of the
plaintiff and plowed the same.

He then proceeded to claim damages and attorney's fees. He prayed that, aside from issuing a writ
or preliminary injunction enjoining private respondents and their hired laborers from intruding into
the land, the court should declare him "the true and absolute owner" thereof. Hence, through his
allegations, what petitioner imagined as clouds cast on his title to the property were private
respondents' alleged acts of  physical intrusion into his purported property. Clearly, the acts alleged
may be considered grounds for an action for forcible entry but definitely not one for quieting of title.

When the issues were joined by the filing of the answer to the complaint, it would have become
apparent to the court that the case was a boundary dispute. The answer alleged, among other
matters, that petitioner, "in bad faith, surreptitiously, maliciously and fraudulently had the land in
question included in the survey of his land which extends to the south only as far as the Bugsayon
River which is the visible and natural and common boundary between the properties." 26 Moreover,
during the hearing of the case, petitioner proved that it was actually a boundary dispute by evidence
showing what he considered as the boundary of his property which private respondents perceived
as actually encroaching on their property. In this regard, the following pronouncements of the Court
are apropos:

. . . (T)he trial court (and likewise the respondent Court) cannot, in an action for
quieting of title, order the determination of the boundaries of the claimed property,
as that would be tantamount to awarding to one or some of the parties the disputed
property in an action where the sole issue is limited to whether the instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding involved constitutes a cloud upon the
petitioners' interest or title in and to said property. Such determination of
boundaries is appropriate in adversarial proceedings where possession or ownership
may properly be considered and where evidence aliunde, other than the
"instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding" itself, may be introduced.
An action for forcible entry, whenever warranted by the period prescribed in Rule
70, or for recovery of possession de facto, also within the prescribed period, may be
availed of by the petitioners, in which proceeding the boundary dispute may be fully
threshed out. 27
Nonetheless, even if the complaint below were to be considered as a valid one for quieting of title,
still, the instant petition for review on certiorari must fail.

As a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon this Court.
Such factual findings shall not be disturbed normally unless the same are palpably unsupported by
the evidence on record or the judgment itself is based on a misapprehension of facts. 28 Upon an
examination of the records, the Court finds no evident reason to depart from the general rule.

The courts below correctly held that when petitioner "sold, ceded, transferred and conveyed" the
5.5-hectare land in favor of Pablo Espinosa, his rights of ownership and possession pertaining
thereto ceased and these were transferred to the latter. In the same manner, Espinosa's rights of
ownership over the land ceased and were transferred to private respondent upon its sale to the
latter. This finds justification in the Civil Code, as follows:

Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to
transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay
therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.

A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.

In other words, a sale is a contract transferring dominion and other real rights in the thing sold. 29 In
the case at bar, petitioner's claim of ownership must of necessary fail because he has long abdicated
his rights over the land when he sold it to private respondent's predecessor-in-interest.

Petitioner's claim that he acquired ownership over the disputed land through possession for more
than twenty (20) years is likewise unmeritorious. While Art. 1134 of the Civil Code provides that
"(o)wnership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription
through possession of ten years," this provision of law must be read in conjunction with Art. 1117 of
the same Code. This article states that ". . . (o)rdinary acquisitive prescription of things requires
possession in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law." Hence, a prescriptive title to
real estate is not acquired by mere possession thereof under claim of ownership for a period of tea
years unless such possession was acquired con justo tilulo y buena fe (with color of title and good
faith). 30 The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from
whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership. 31 For
purposes of prescription, there is just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the
property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real
rights but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right. 32

Petitioners have not satisfactorily met the requirements of good faith and just title. As aptly
observed by the trial court, the plaintiff's admitted acts of converting boundary line (Bugsayon River)
into a ricefield and thereafter claiming ownership thereof were acts constituting deprivation of the
rights of others and therefore "tantamount to bad faith." 33 To allow petitioner to benefit from his
own wrong would run counter to the maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio (no man can allowed to
found a claim upon his own wrongdoing). Extraordinary acquisitive prescription cannot similarly vest
ownership over the property upon petitioner. Art. 1137 of the Civil Code states that "(o)wnership
and other real rights over immovables prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof
for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith." Petitioner's alleged possession in 1962 up to
September 1983 when private respondents entered the property in question spanned twenty-one
(21) years. This period of time is short of the thirty-year requirement mandated by Art. 1137.
Petitioner basically anchors his claim over the property on the survey plan prepared upon his
request, 34 the tax declaration in his name, 35 the commissioner's report on the relocation
survey, 36 and the survey plan. 37 Respondent court correctly held that these documents do not
conclusively demonstrate petitioner's title over Lot Nos. 3918-A and 3606.

A survey is the act by which the quantity of a parcel of land is ascertained and so a paper containing
a statement of courses, distances, and quantity of
land. 38 A survey under a proprietary title is not a conveyance. It is an instrument sui generis in the
nature of a partition; a customary mode in which a proprietor has set off to himself in severalty a
part of the common estate. 39 Therefore, a survey, not being a conveyance, is not a mode of
acquiring ownership. A fortiori, petitioner cannot found his claim on the survey plan reflecting a
subdivision of land because it is not conclusive as to ownership as it may refer only to a delineation
of possession. 40

Furthermore, the plan was not verified and approved by the Bureau of Lands in accordance with Sec.
28, paragraph 5 of Act No. 2259, the Cadastral Act, as amended by Sec. 1862 of Act No. 2711. Said
law ordains that private surveyors send their original field notes, computations, reports, surveys,
maps and plots regarding a piece of property to the Bureau of Lands for verification and
approval. 41 A survey plan not verified and approved by said Bureau is nothing more than a private
writing, the due execution and authenticity of which must be proven in accordance with Sec. 20 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The circumstance that the plan was admitted in evidence without any
objection as to its due execution and authenticity does not signify that the courts shall give probative
value therefor. To admit evidence and not to believe it subsequently are not contradictory to each
other. This Court cannot alter the conclusions of
the Court of Appeals on the credibility accorded to evidence presented by the parties. 42

Similarly, petitioner's tax declaration issued under his name is not even persuasive evidence of his
claimed ownership over the land in dispute. A tax declaration, by itself, is not considered conclusive
evidence of ownership. 43 It is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership. 44 Because it does not by
itself give title, it is of little value in proving one's ownership. 45 Moreover, the incompatibility in
petitioner's tax declaration and the commissioner's report as regards the area of his claimed
property is much too glaring to be ignored. Tax Declaration No. 8717 states that petitioner's
property has an area of 3.2800 hectares while the totality of his claim according to the
commissioned geodetic engineer's survey amounts to 4.1385 hectares. There is therefore a notable
discrepancy of 8,585 square meters. On the other hand, private respondent's claimed property, as
borne out by Tax Declaration No. 12738, totals 5.5 hectares, a more proximate equivalent of the
5.2433-hectare property as shown by the commissioner's report.

There is also nothing in the commissioner's report that substantiates petitioner's claim that the
disputed land was inside his property. Petitioner capitalizes on the lower court's statement in its
decision 46 that "as reflected in the commissioner's report dated May 23, 1984 (Exhibit 3-3-A), the
area claimed is inside lot 3918 of the defendants (Exhibit 2)" 47 or the  private respondents. A careful
reading of the decision would show that this statement is found in the summary of defendants'
(herein private respondents) evidence. Reference to Lot No. 3918 may, therefore, be attributed to
mere oversight as the lower court even continues to state the defendants' assertion that the 2-
hectare land is part of their 5.5-hectare property. Hence, it is not amiss to conclude that either
petitioner misapprehended the lower court's decision or he is trying to contumaciously mislead or
worse, deceive this Court.

With respect to the awards of moral damages of P10,000.00 and attorney's fees of P2,000.00, the
Court finds no cogent reason to delete the same. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings to the effect
that where fraud and bad faith have been established, the award of moral damages is in
order. 48 This pronouncement finds support in Art. 2219 (10) of the Civil Code allowing the recovery
of moral damages for acts enumerated in Art. 21 of the same Code. This article states that "(a)ny
person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." The moral damages are
hereby increased to P30,000.00. We agree with the respondent court in holding that the award of
attorney's fees is justified because petitioner filed a clearly unfounded civil action. 49

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED and the questioned
Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. This Decision is immediately executory. Costs against
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Kapunan and Purisima, JJ., concur.