PONS REALTY v CA , Moreover, inasmuch as it is alleged in the
FACTS: complaint that the lands claimed by private
Pon's Realty Corporation is the registered respondent on behalf of his supposed principals owner of the parcels of land claimed by him are alleged to constitute part of the estate of pursuant to Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. Don Mariano San Pedro whose estate is under 258006, 285005 and 179173, which were administration in Special Proceedings No. 312- derived from Original Certificates of Title Nos. B of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan 4420 and 978 and 355, respectively, issued on , the suit can be filed only by the judicial March 5, 1931 and November 10, 1916 and administrator of that estate or another person August 21, 1907, respectively. - duly authorized by the probate court. Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 allegedly Additionally, the Court is of the considered conferred hundreds of thousands of hectares in opinion that the above-quoted supposed Bulacan, Rizal, Quezon, Quezon City, and Appointment in favor of respondent Falcis as Caloocan in the name of the deceased Don "Administrator-Plenipotentiary-Extraordinary" Mariano San Pedro y Esteban - is on its face so irregular, the language and matter treated therein being obviously Plaintiff Prudencio G. Falcis, is sueing in his impossible to have been officially the act of any capacity as an Administrator-Plenipotentiary- President of the Philippines, that it cannot and Extraordinary Xerox copy of the appointment is should not be given recognition by anyone, hereto attached as ANNEX A hereof, and as much less the courts. Private respondent Falcis Attorney-in-fact of the heirs of the Estate and has no legal personality to file the complaint in administrator of their respective shares as issue. Extra-Judicially settled among the heirs themselves, pursuant to the instrument entitled 'Reconfirmation and Ratification of FRANCISCO vs CA whatever Power and Authority vested in Prudencio G. Falcis, etc., xerox copies of which VDA. DE AVILES v. CA as ANNEXES B, B-1 to B-5 , while plaintiff- ALEJANDRO J. VICTORINO and EDDIE S. YAP An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may Filipino, of legal age, married, hereinafter not be brought for the purpose of settling a referred to as the plaintiff-lot-buyers, boundary dispute. evidenced by copies of Deed of Conditional Sale FACTS: Eduardo Aviles, the predecessor of the ISSUE: WoN Falcis had the personality to assail petitioners is the bother of defendant Camilo. the registration of the titles held by Pons They inherited their lands from their parents Realty Co and have agreed to subdivide the same amongst themselves. The area alloted (sic) to RULING: Eduardo Aviles is 16,111 square meters more After an opposition was filed by private- or less, to Anastacio Aviles is 16,214 square respondent, the trial court denied the motion meters more or less, while the area alloted to and the decision of the Court of Appeals under defendant Camilo Aviles is 14,470 square review sustained said denial. We do not meters more or less. hesitate in holding that the complaint in question should have been dismissed, if only Defendants land composed of the riceland because as an action to nullify and cancel the portion of his land is 13,290 square meters, torrens titles in dispute the fishpond portion is 500 square meters and , it is not the proper remedy under the Land the residential portion is 680 square meters, or Registration Act and the jurisprudence a total of 14,470 square meters. thereunder concerning the indefeasibility of the decrees of registration on which said titles are The Petitioners claim that they are the owners based after one year from their issuance, of the fish pond which they claim is within their which took place way back, at the latest in area. Defendant Camilo Aviles asserted a color 1931, and as a suit for damages, it cannot of title over the northern portion of the prosper against herein petitioner who was not property with an area of approximately 1,200 the original registrant but a mere second square meters by constructing a bamboo fence transferee, as evidenced by the annotation on (thereon) and moving the earthen dikes, the said titles themselves thereby molesting and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over said portion. Petitioners say that the fences were created to unduly encroach to their property but the defendant said that he merely reconstructed the same.
Petitioners brought an action to quiet title but
were denied thus this case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners filed the
right action
RULING: No, Petitioners filed the wrong action. This is obviously a boundary dispute and as such the action must fail.
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 a title to real property or any interest therein.
Petitioners fail to point out any any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that could been a cloud to their title. In fact, both plaintiffs and defendant admitted the existence of the agreement of partition dated June 8, 1957 and in accordance therewith, a fixed area was allotted to them and that the only controversy is whether these lands were properly measured.
A special civil action for quieting of title is not
the proper remedy for settling a boundary dispute, and that petitioners should have instituted an ejectment suit instead. 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.