10 SUPREME COURT 103

2 REPORTS VOL. 287, 103

ANNOTATED MARCH 6, 1998
Titong vs. Court of Appeals Titong vs. Court of
(4th Division) Appeals (4th Division)
G.R. No. 111141. March 6, 1998. *
Same; Same; Same; The acts alleged may be considered
MARIO Z. TITONG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE grounds for an action for forcible entry but definitely not one for
COURT OF APPEALS (4th Division), VICTORICO LAURIO quieting of title.—He prayed that, aside from issuing a writ or
and ANGELES LAURIO, respondents. preliminary injunction enjoining private respondents and their hired
laborers from intruding into the land, the court should declare him
Civil Law; Property; Quieting of Title; The ground or reason “the true and absolute owner” thereof. Hence, through his
for filing a complaint for quieting of title must be “an instrument, allegations, what petitioner imagined as clouds cast on his title to the
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding.”—At the outset, we hold property were private respondents’ alleged acts of physical
that the instant petition must be denied for the reason that the lower intrusion into his purported property. Clearly, the acts alleged may
court should have outrightly dismissed the complaint for quieting of be considered grounds for an action for forcible entry but definitely
title. The remedy of quieting of title may be availed of under the not one for quieting of title.
circumstances enumerated in the Civil Code: “ART. 476. Whenever Same; Same; Prescription; A prescription title to real estate is
there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by not acquired by mere possession thereof under claim of ownership
reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or for a period of ten years unless such possession was acquired con
proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and justo titulo y buena fe (with color of title and good faith).—
in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be Petitioner’s claim that he acquired ownership over the disputed land
prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such through possession for more than twenty (20) years is likewise
cloud or to quiet the title. An action may also be brought to prevent a unmeritorious. While Art. 1134 of the Civil Code provides that
cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest “(o)wnership and other real rights over immovable property are
therein.” Under this provision, a claimant must show that there is an acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years,”
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which this provision of law must be read in conjunction with Art. 1117 of
constitutes or casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon the the same Code. This article states that “x x x (o)rdinary acquisitive
owner’s title to or interest in real property. The ground or reason for prescription of things requires possession in good faith and with just
filing a complaint for quieting of title must therefore be “an title for the time fixed by law.” Hence, a prescriptive title to real
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding.” Under the estate is not acquired by mere possession thereof under claim of
maxim expresio unius est exclusio alterius, these grounds are ownership for a period of ten years unless such possession was
exclusive so that other reasons outside of the purview of these acquired con justo titulo y buena fe (with color of title and good
reasons may not be considered valid for the same action. faith). The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable
_______________
belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the
*
 THIRD DIVISION. owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership. For purposes of

1|Page
prescription, there is just title when the adverse claimant came into proprietor has set off to himself in severalty a part of the common
possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by estate. Therefore, a survey, not being a conveyance, is not a mode of
law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights but the acquiring ownership. A fortiori, petitioner cannot found his claim on
grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right. the survey plan reflecting a subdivision of land because it is not
Same; Same; Same; Petitioners have not satisfactorily met the conclusive as to ownership as it may refer only to a delineation of
requirements of good faith and just title.—Petitioners have not possession.
satisfactorily met the requirements of good faith and just title. As Same; Same; Same; A survey plan not verified and approved
aptly observed by the trial court, the plaintiff’s admitted acts of by the Bureau of Lands is nothing more than a private writing, the
converting the boundary line (Bugsayon River) into a ricefield and due execution and authenticity of which must be proven in
thereafter claiming ownership thereof were acts constituting accordance with Sec. 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.—
deprivation of the Furthermore, the plan was not verified and approved by the Bureau
104 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
10 SUPREME law ordains that private surveyors send their original field notes,
4 COURT REPORTS computations, reports, surveys, maps and plots regarding a piece of
ANNOTATED property to the Bureau of Lands for verification and approval. A
Titong vs. Court of survey plan not verified and approved by said Bureau is nothing
more than a private writing, the due execution and authenticity of
Appeals (4th Division)
which must be proven in accordance with Sec. 20 of Rule 132 of the
rights of others and therefore “tantamount to bad faith.” To
Rules of Court. The circumstance that the plan was admitted in
allow petitioner to benefit from his own wrong would run counter to
evidence without any objection as to its due execution and
the maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio (no man can be allowed to
authenticity does not signify that the courts shall give probative
found a claim upon his own wrongdoing). Extraordinary acquisitive
value therefor. To admit evi-
prescription cannot similarly vest ownership over the property upon 105
petitioner. Art. 1137 of the Civil Code states that “(o)wnership and
other real rights over immovables prescribe through uninterrupted VOL. 287, 105
adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of MARCH 6, 1998
good faith.” Petitioner’s alleged possession in 1962 up to September
1983 when private respondents entered the property in question
Titong vs. Court of
spanned twenty-one (21) years. This period of time is short of the Appeals (4th Division)
thirty-year requirement mandated by Art. 1137. dence and not to believe it subsequently are not contradictory to
Same; Same; Same; A survey, not being a conveyance, is not a each other. This Court cannot alter the conclusions of the Court of
mode of acquiring ownership.—A survey is the act by which the Appeals on the credibility accorded to evidence presented by the
quantity of a parcel of land is ascertained and also a paper containing parties.
a statement of courses, distances, and quantity of land. A survey Same; Same; Ownership; A tax declaration, by itself, is not
under a proprietary title is not a conveyance. It is an instrument sui considered conclusive evidence of ownership.—Similarly,
generis in the nature of a partition; a customary mode in which a petitioner’s tax declaration issued under his name is not even

2|Page
persuasive evidence of his claimed ownership over the land in ANNOTATED
dispute. A tax declaration, by itself, is not considered conclusive Titong vs. Court of Appeals
evidence of ownership. It is merely an indicium of a claim of
ownership. Because it does not by itself give title, it is of little value (4th Division)
in proving one’s ownership. Petitioner alleges that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel
of land with an area of 3.2800 hectares, more or less, surveyed
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court as Lot No. 3918, and declared for taxation purposes in his
of Appeals. name. He claims that on three separate occasions in September
1983, private respondents, with their hired laborers, forcibly
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. entered a portion of the land containing an area of
     Rodolfo A. Manlapaz for petitioner. approximately two (2) hectares, and began plowing the same
     Regino B. Tambago for private respondents. under pretext of ownership. Private respondents denied this
allegation, and averred that the disputed property formed part
ROMERO, J.: of the 5.5-hectare agricultural land which they had purchased
from their predecessor-in-interest,  Pablo Espinosa on August
2

Like a priceless treasure coveted by many, but capable of 10, 1981.

ownership by only one, this 20,592 square-meter parcel of land In his testimony, petitioner identified Espinosa as his
located at Barrio Titong, Masbate, Masbate is claimed by two adjoining owner,  asserting that no controversy had sprouted
3

contestants in this petition for review on certiorari. between them for twenty years until the latter sold Lot No.
Unfortunately, legal title over the property can be vested in 3479 to private respondent Victorico Laurio.  This was
4

only one of them. corroborated by Ignacio Villamor, who had worked on the land
The case originated from an action for quieting of title filed even before its sale to Espinosa in 1962. The boundary
by petitioner Mario Titong. The Regional Trial Court of between the land sold to Espinosa and what remained of
Masbate, Masbate, Branch 44  ruled in favor of private
1
petitioner’s property was the old Bugsayon river. When
respondents, Victorico Laurio and Angeles Laurio, adjudging petitioner employed Bienvenido Lerit as his tenant in 1962, he
them as the true and lawful owners of the disputed land. instructed Lerit to change the course of the old river and direct
Affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeals, petitioner comes the flow of water to the lowland at the southern portion of
to us for a favorable reversal. petitioner’s property, thus converting the old river into a
_______________
riceland.
5

 Penned by Judge Manuel C. Genova.

1 For his part, private respondent anchors his defense on the
following facts: He denied petitioner’s claim of ownership,
106
recounting that the area and boundaries of the disputed land
10 SUPREME COURT remained unaltered during the series of conveyances prior to its
6 REPORTS coming into his hands. According to him, petitioner first

3|Page
declared the land for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration consideration of the amount of P5,000.00. Thereafter, Tax
No. 2916,  which showed that the land had an area of 5.5
6
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
 Rollo, p. 17.
2

 TSN, May 8, 1995, p. 4.

3 Tax Declaration No. 2916 under petitioner’s name.
 TSN, May 8, 1985, p. 6.
4 It was proved at the proceedings in the court a quo that two
 TSN, February 11, 1986, pp. 4-6.
5
(2) surveys were made of the disputed property. The first
 Exh. 11.
6
_______________
107 7
 Exhs. 11-A & 11-B.
VOL. 287, MARCH 6, 107 8
 Exh. 10.
1998 9
 Exhs. 8 & 8-A.
10
 Exh. 7.
Titong vs. Court of Appeals 11
 Exhs. 6 & 6-B.
(4th Division) 12
 Exh. 5.
hectares and was bounded on the North by the Bugsayon River; 13
 He is described in the instrument as “married to Nelia Averilla.”
on the East by property under the ownership of Lucio Lerit; on 108
the South by property owner by Potenciano Zaragoza; and on 10 SUPREME COURT
the West by property owned by Agapito de la Cruz.  Private
7
8 REPORTS
Respondent then alleges that, on December 21, 1960, petitioner ANNOTATED
sold this property to Concepcion Verano vda. de Cabug, after
Titong vs. Court of Appeals
which Tax Declaration No. 5339  was issued in her favor. In
8

compliance with their mutual agreement to repurchase the (4th Division)

same, petitioner reacquired the property by way of sale  on 9
survey  was made for petitioner, while the second was the
14

August 24, 1962 and then declared it for taxation purposes in relocation survey ordered by the lower court. As anticipated,
his name under Tax Declaration No. 5720.  However, the
10
certain discrepancies between the two surveys surfaced. Thus,
property remained in petitioner’s hands for only four (4) days contrary to petitioner’s allegation in his complaint that he is the
because, on August 28, 1962, he sold it to Espinosa  who then
11
owner of only 3.2800 hectares, he was actually claiming
declared it in his name under Tax Declaration No. 5.9789 hectares, the total areas of Lot Nos. 3918, 3918-A and
12311.  Consequently, the property became a part of the estate
12
3606. On the other hand, Lot No. 3479 pertaining to Espinosa,
of Pablo Espinosa’s wife, the late Segundina Liao Espinosa. was left with only an area of 4.1841 hectares instead of the 5.5
On August 10, 1981, her heirs executed an instrument hectares sold by petitioner to him. Apprised of the discrepancy,
denominated as “Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with private respondent filed a protest  before the Bureau of Lands
15

Simultaneous Sale” whereby the 5.5-hectare property under against the first survey, likewise filing a case for alteration of
Tax Declaration No. 12311 was sold to private respondent  in13

4|Page
boundaries before the municipal trial court, the proceedings of the South by property owner Espinosa, and on the West by
which, however, were suspended because of the instant case. 16
property owner Adolfo Titong.  Private respondent accordingly
21

Private respondent testified that petitioner is one of the four denied that petitioner had diverted the course of the Bugsayon
heirs of his mother, Leonida Zaragoza. In the Extrajudicial River after he had repurchased the land from Concepcion
Settlement with Sale of Estate of the deceased Leonida Verano vda. de Cabug  because the land was immediately sold
22

Zaragoza,  the heirs adjudicated unto themselves the 3.6hectare

17
to Espinosa shortly thereafter. 23

property of the deceased. The property involved is described in The lower court rendered a decision in favor of private
the instrument as having been declared under Tax Declaration respondents, declaring him as the true and absolute owner of
No. 3301  and as bounded on the North by Victor Verano, on
18
the litigated property and ordering petitioner to respect private
the East by Benigno Titong, on the South by the Bugsayon respondents’ title and ownership over the property and to pay
River and on the West by Benigno Titong. On September 9, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, costs and moral damages.
1969, Tax Declaration No. 8723 was issued to petitioner for his Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed
corresponding share in the estate. the decision. On motion for reconsideration, the same was
However, instead of reflecting only .9000 hectare as his denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition for review on
rightful share in the extrajudicial settlement  petitioner’s share
19
certiorari.
was bloated to 2.4 hectares. It therefore appeared to private At the outset, we hold that the instant petition must be
respondent that petitioner encroached upon his (Laurio’s) denied for the reason that the lower court should have
property and declared it a part of his inheritance. 20
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:
 Exh. B.
14

 Exh. 15.
15
“ART. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any
 TSN, October 26, 1989, pp. 7-11, 45-49.
16 interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
 Exhs. 12 & 12-B.
17 encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective
 Exh. 13.
18
but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
 Exh. 12-A.
19
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be
 TSN, October 26, 1989, p. 35.
20
brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
109 An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast
VOL. 287, MARCH 6, 109 upon title to real property or any interest therein.”
1998 _______________
Titong vs. Court of Appeals 21
 Exh. 14-A.
(4th Division) 22
 Exh. 8-B.
The boundaries were likewise altered so that it was bounded on 23
 Exhs. 6 & 6-B.
the North by Victor Verano, on the East by Benigno Titong, on 110

5|Page
11 SUPREME COURT acts alleged may be considered grounds for an action for
0 REPORTS forcible entry but definitely not one for quieting of title.
ANNOTATED When the issues were joined by the filing of the answer to
Titong vs. Court of Appeals the complaint, it would have become apparent to the court that
the case was a boundary dispute. The answer alleged, among
(4th Division)
other matters, that petitioner, “in bad faith, surreptitiously,
Under this provision, a claimant must show that there is an
maliciously and fraudulently had the land in question
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.  The ground or
24
 Vda. de Aviles v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95748, November 21,
24

reason for filing a complaint for quieting of title must therefore 1996, 264 SCRA 473, 479.
 Ibid., citing Lerum v. Cruz, 87 Phil. 652 (1950).
25

be “an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding.”

Under the maxim expresio unius est exclusio alterius, these 111
grounds are exclusive so that other reasons outside of the VOL. 287, MARCH 6, 111
purview of these reasons may not be considered valid for the 1998
same action.25
Titong vs. Court of Appeals
Had the lower court thoroughly considered the complaint (4th Division)
filed, it would have had no other course of action under the law included in the survey of his land which extends to the south
but to dismiss it. The complaint failed to allege that an only as far as the Bugsayon River which is the visible and
“instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding” natural and common boundary between the
beclouded the plaintiff’s title over the property involved. properties.”26 Moreover, during the hearing of the case,
Petitioner merely alleged that the defendants (respondents petitioner proved that it was actually a boundary dispute by
herein), together with their hired laborers and without legal evidence showing what he considered as the boundary of his
justification, forcibly entered the southern portion of the land property which private respondents perceived as actually
of the plaintiff and plowed the same. encroaching on their property. In this regard, the following
He then proceeded to claim damages and attorney’s fees. pronouncements of the Court are apropos:
He prayed that, aside from issuing a writ or preliminary “x x x (T)he trial court (and likewise the respondent Court) cannot,
injunction enjoining private respondents and their hired in an action for quieting of title, order the determination of the
laborers from intruding into the land, the court should declare boundaries of the claimed property, as that would be tantamount to
him “the true and absolute owner” thereof. Hence, through his awarding to one or some of the parties the disputed property in an
allegations, what petitioner imagined as clouds cast on his title action where the sole issue is limited to whether the instrument,
to the property were private respondents’ alleged acts record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding involved constitutes a
of physical intrusion into his purported property. Clearly, the cloud upon the petitioners’ interest or title in and to said property.
Such determination of boundaries is appropriate in adversarial

6|Page
proceedings where possession or ownership may properly be latter. In the same manner, Espinosa’s rights of ownership over
considered and where evidence aliunde, other than the ‘instrument, the land ceased and were transferred to private respondent
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding’ itself, may be introduced. upon its sale to the latter. This finds justification in the Civil
An action for forcible entry, whenever warranted by the period Code, as follows:
prescribed in Rule 70, or for recovery of possession de facto, also “ART. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties
within the prescribed period, may be availed of by the petitioners, in obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a
which proceeding the boundary dispute may be fully threshed out.” 27

determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in

Nonetheless, even if the complaint below were to be money or its equivalent.
A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.”
considered as a valid one for quieting of title, still, the instant
petition for review on certiorari must fail. In other words, a sale is a contract transferring dominion and
As a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals other real rights in the thing sold.  In the case at bar,
29

are binding and conclusive upon this Court. Such factual petitioner’s claim of ownership must of necessity fail because
findings shall not be disturbed normally unless the same are he has long abdicated his rights over the land when he sold it to
palpably unsupported by the evidence on record or the private respondent’s predecessor-in-interest.
judgment itself is based on a misapprehension of facts.  Upon 28
Petitioner’s claim that he acquired ownership over the
an disputed land through possession for more than twenty (20)
_______________ years is likewise unmeritorious. While Art. 1134 of the Civil
 Ibid., p. 11.
26 Code provides that “(o)wnership and other real rights over
 Vda. de Aviles v. Court of Appeals, supra at p. 482.
27 immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription
 Inland Trailways, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 457, 462
28
through possession of ten years,” this provision of law must be
(1996); Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 374, 383 (1996); read in conjunction with Art. 1117 of the same Code. This
112 article states that “x x x (o)rdinary acquisitive prescription of
11 SUPREME COURT things requires possession in good faith and with just title for
2 REPORTS the time fixed by law.” Hence, a prescriptive title to real estate
ANNOTATED is not acquired by mere possession thereof under claim of
_______________
Titong vs. Court of Appeals
(4th Division) Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118833,
examination of the records, the Court finds no evident reason November 29, 1995, 250 SCRA 409, 414.
29
 AQUINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. 3, 1990 ed., p. 1
to depart from the general rule. citing Denoga v. Insular Government, 19 Phil. 261 (1911).
The courts below correctly held that when petitioner “sold,
ceded, transferred and conveyed” the 5.5-hectare land in favor 113
of Pablo Espinosa, his rights of ownership and possession VOL. 287, MARCH 6, 113
pertaining thereto ceased and these were transferred to the 1998

7|Page
 Titong vs. Court of Appeals _______________

(4th Division) 30
 Santiago v. Cruz, 19 Phil. 145 (1911).
ownership for a period of ten years unless such possession was 31
 Art. 1127, Civil Code.
acquired con justo titulo y buena fe (with color of title and 32
 Art. 1129, Ibid.
33
 Decision, p. 10.
good faith).  The good faith of the possessor consists in the
30
34
 Exh. B.
reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the 35
 Exh. A.
thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his
114
ownership.  For purposes of prescription, there is just title
31

when the adverse claimant came into possession of the 11 SUPREME COURT
property through one of the modes recognized by law for the 4 REPORTS
acquisition of ownership or other real rights but the grantor was ANNOTATED
not the owner or could not transmit any right. 32 Titong vs. Court of Appeals
Petitioners have not satisfactorily met the requirements of (4th Division)
good faith and just title. As aptly observed by the trial court, survey,  and the survey plan.  Respondent court correctly held
36 37

the plaintiff’s admitted acts of converting the boundary line that these documents do not conclusively demonstrate
(Bugsayon River) into a ricefield and thereafter claiming petitioner’s title over Lot Nos. 3918-A and 3606.
ownership thereof were acts constituting deprivation of the A survey is the act by which the quantity of a parcel of land
rights of others and therefore “tantamount to bad faith.”  To
33
is ascertained and also a paper containing a statement of
allow petitioner to benefit from his own wrong would run courses, distances, and quantity of land.  A survey under a
38

counter to the maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio (no man proprietary title is not a conveyance. It is an instrument sui
can be allowed to found a claim upon his own wrongdoing). generis in the nature of a partition; a customary mode in which
Extraordinary acquisitive prescription cannot similarly vest a proprietor has set off to himself in severalty a part of the
ownership over the property upon petitioner. Art. 1137 of the common estate.  Therefore, a survey, not being a conveyance,
39

Civil Code states that “(o)wnership and other real rights over is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A fortiori, petitioner
immovables prescribe through uninterrupted adverse cannot found his claim on the survey plan reflecting a
possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of subdivision of land because it is not conclusive as to ownership
good faith.” Petitioner’s alleged possession in 1962 up to as it may refer only to a delineation of possession. 40

September 1983 when private respondents entered the property Furthermore, the plan was not verified and approved by the
in question spanned twenty-one (21) years. This period of time Bureau of Lands in accordance with Sec. 28, paragraph 5 of
is short of the thirty-year requirement mandated by Art. 1137. Act No. 2259, the Cadastral Act, as amended by Sec. 1862 of
Petitioner basically anchors his claim over the property on Act No. 2711. Said law ordains that private surveyors send
the survey plan prepared upon his request,  the tax declaration
34
their original field notes, computations, reports, surveys, maps
in his name,  the commissioner’s report on the relocation
35
and plots regarding a piece of property to the Bureau of Lands

8|Page
for verification and approval.  A survey plan not verified and
41
of his claimed property is much too glaring to be ignored. Tax
approved by said Bureau is nothing more than a private Declaration No. 8717 states that petitioner’s property has an
writing, the due execution and authenticity of which must be area of 3.2800 hectares while the totality of his claim according
proven in accordance with Sec. 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of to the commissioned geodetic engineer’s survey amounts to
Court. The circumstance that the plan was admitted in evidence 4.1385 hectares. There is therefore a notable discrepancy of
without any objection as to its due execution and authenticity 8,585 square meters. On the other hand, private respondent’s
does not signify that the courts shall give proba- claimed property, as borne out by Tax Declaration No. 12738,
_______________ totals 5.5 hectares, a more proximate equivalent of the
5.2433hectare property as shown by the commissioner’s report.
36
 Record, pp. 39-40.
37
 Exh. C. There is also nothing in the commissioner’s report that
38
 40A WORDS AND PHRASES 531 citing Miller v. Lawyers Title Ins. substantiates petitioner’s claim that the disputed land was
Corp., D.C. Va., 112 F. Supp. 221, 224. inside his property. Petitioner capitalizes on the lower court’s
39
 Ibid., citing Jennings v. Burnham, 28 A. 1048, 56 N.J.L. 289, 291. statement in its decision  that “as reflected in the commis-
46
40
 Heirs of George Bofill v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107930, October 7,
_______________
1994, 237 SCRA 451, 458.
41
 Fige v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107951, June 30, 1994, 233 SCRA
 Ledesma v. Realubin and Court of Appeals, 118 Phil. 625, 629 (1963).
42
586, 590.
 Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 314 Phil. 57 (1995); Republic v. IAC, G.R.
43

115 No. 74380, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 285, 296; De Jesus v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 57092, January 21, 1993, 217 SCRA 307, 317.
VOL. 287, MARCH 6, 115  Director of Lands v. IAC, G.R. No. 73246, March 2, 1993, 219 SCRA
44

1998 339, 348.

Titong vs. Court of Appeals  Sapu-an v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91869, October 19, 1992, 214
45

SCRA 701.
(4th Division)  Decision, p. 6.
46

tive value therefor. To admit evidence and not to believe it

116
subsequently are not contradictory to each other. This Court
cannot alter the conclusions of the Court of Appeals on the 11 SUPREME COURT
credibility accorded to evidence presented by the parties. 42 6 REPORTS
Similarly, petitioner’s tax declaration issued under his name ANNOTATED
is not even persuasive evidence of his claimed ownership over Titong vs. Court of Appeals
the land in dispute. A tax declaration, by itself, is not (4th Division)
considered conclusive evidence of ownership.  It is merely an
43
sioner’s report dated May 23, 1984 (Exhibit 3-3-A), the area
indicium of a claim of ownership.  Because it does not by itself
44
claimed is inside lot 3918 of the defendants (Exhibit 2)”  or 47

give title, it is of little value in proving one’s the private respondents. A careful reading of the decision
ownership.  Moreover, the incompatibility in petitioner’s tax
45
would show that this statement is found in the summary of
declaration and the commissioner’s report as regards the area defendants’ (herein private respondents) evidence. Reference

9|Page
to Lot No. 3918 may, therefore, be attributed to mere oversight Santos, Jr. vs. NLRC
as the lower court even continues to state the defendants’ of Appeals AFFIRMED. This Decision is immediately
assertion that the 2-hectare land is part of their 5.5hectare executory. Costs against petitioner.
property. Hence, it is not amiss to conclude that either SO ORDERED.
petitioner misapprehended the lower court’s decision or he is      Narvasa (C.J., Chairman),  Kapunan and Purisima,
trying to contumaciously mislead or worse, deceive this Court. JJ., concur.
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 Petition denied; Questioned decision affirmed.
reason to delete the same. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings Note.—Tax receipts and declaration of ownership for
to the effect that where fraud and bad faith have been taxation when coupled with proof of actual possession of the
established, the award of moral damages is in order.  This 48 property can be the basis of claim of ownership through
pronouncement finds support in Art. 2219 (10) of the Civil prescription. (Heirs of Placido Miranda vs. Court of
Code allowing the recovery of moral damages for acts Appeals, 255 SCRA 368 [1996])
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 ——o0o——
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.” The moral
reserved
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
_______________

 Petition, p. 9.
47

 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

48

109937, March 21, 1994, 231 SCRA 370, 377; Pasibigan v. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 90169, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 202, 208; De Guzman v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 90856, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 723, 731.
 Art. 2208 (4), Civil Code.
49

117
VOL. 287, MARCH 6, 117
1998

10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e