Provost vs. Ramos

In an action for recovery of ownership and possession under Article 434 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff must establish the identity of the property sought to be recovered with certainty by relying on the strength of his own title through approved and accurate survey plans, and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim; reliance on a disapproved survey plan with defective technical descriptions is insufficient to delineate boundaries or establish identity of the property.

The case arose from a boundary dispute between two adjoining landowners in Barangay Tupsan Grande, Mambajao, Camiguin involving Lots 12542 and 12543, where a fence constructed by the Provosts in 1992 became the subject of conflicting claims of ownership based on an old disapproved cadastral survey plan versus a new approved correction survey plan that showed different technical descriptions and land areas for the respective properties.

• Private respondents Spouses Victor and Fe Ramos are owners of Lot No. 12542, Case 15, Cad. 473 situated in Putingbalas, Tupsan Grande, Mambajao, Camiguin, which was donated to them by Nicolasa Yap Vda. de Abao on October 24, 1994.
• Petitioner Dolores Miranda Provost owns the adjacent Lot No. 12543, C-15, Cad. 473, which she purchased from Rosario Abanil.
• In May 1992, the Provosts constructed a fence separating the two lots.
• In 1994, the Ramos spouses claimed the Provosts encroached on a portion of their lot and demanded the return of the encroached area, but the Provosts refused.
• The Ramos spouses had a relocation survey conducted which showed that the fence was constructed on their land based on the old survey plan.
• The Provosts argued that the cadastral survey plan used by the Ramoses had been disapproved by the DENR Regional Office for being defective and was replaced with a correction survey of Barangay Tupsan, Mambajao.
• Under the correction survey approved on February 16, 1994, Lot No. 12542 was surveyed as Lot No. 13436 with a reduced area of 3,845 square meters (from 4,402 square meters), while Lot No. 12543 was surveyed as Lot No. 12769 with an increased area of 2,634 square meters (from 1,774 square meters).
• Upon request of the Provosts, another relocation survey was conducted using the approved cadastral survey plan, which showed that the fence was constructed within the petitioners' property.
• The contested area was previously occupied by Asterio Aboc, a tenant of Rosario Abanil, from whom petitioner Dolores Provost purchased her lot.
• The Ramos spouses filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession with damages before the Municipal Trial Court on December 26, 1994, alleging encroachment of 314 square meters.

• The Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the appeal outside the issues raised in the decisions of both the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court.
• The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on the technical description of the erroneous and disapproved survey of the private respondents' land as the basis for finding that petitioners had encroached.
• The points of the frontage of respondents' property in the old and new survey plans are similar but with different technical descriptions on measurements and bearings, making the location of the frontage in the two surveys not identical.
• Under the approved survey plan, the fence was constructed at point 9, which is point 4 of their lot and clearly within their property.
• Private respondents were unable to establish the identity of their property since they relied on a disapproved survey plan.
• The Court of Appeals merely denied the Motion for Reconsideration in a cavalier manner without stating the legal basis therefor, violating Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

• They and their predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous and open possession as owners of the property since World War II, as evidenced by tax declarations.
• Petitioners did not deny that points 7, 8 and 9 of respondents' property were the frontage of their lot.
• The Provosts encroached on their land as the fence was constructed at point 8 of their property.
• The correction survey plan was under protest as it would prejudice private respondents.

• Procedural:
  • Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy, or whether it should be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether petitioners encroached upon the property of private respondents.
  • Whether private respondents established the identity of the property sought to be recovered with sufficient certainty.
  • Whether the approved correction survey plan or the disapproved old survey plan should govern the determination of boundaries.

• Procedural:
  • The Court noted that the case involves an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction, thus a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not proper.
  • Nevertheless, the Court gave due course to the instant petition as one proper for review under Rule 45.
• Substantive:
  • The Court sustained the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
  • In an action to recover under Article 434 of the Civil Code, the claimant must (1) establish the identity of the property sought to be recovered and (2) rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of defendant's claim.
  • What defines a piece of land is not the area calculated with more or less certainty mentioned in the description, but the boundaries therein laid down as enclosing the land and indicating its limits.
  • Private respondents failed to identify the property they seek to recover as they relied on the old survey plan whose technical descriptions did not indicate accurate measurements and limits, and which was disapproved by the DENR Regional Office.
  • The technical descriptions under the old cadastral survey plan cannot be the basis to delineate boundaries or determine areas because it was not approved.
  • Private respondents failed to prove open, continuous, and adverse possession of the disputed area; reliance on early tax declarations and predecessors' possession since World War II is insufficient to delineate boundaries.
  • The contested area was part of Abanil's lot sold to petitioner Dolores Provost, evidenced by the admission that Asterio Aboc was a tenant of Rosario Abanil.
  • The existing correct and approved cadastral survey plan of Barangay Tupsan should be the basis to delineate boundaries, absent any showing that it is erroneous.
  • The award of actual damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses granted by the RTC must be deleted for lack of legal and factual basis, as the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule and requires a showing of gross and evident bad faith.

• Identity of the Property in Recovery Actions — Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, a plaintiff seeking recovery of property must establish with certainty the identity of the property by describing its boundaries that enclose the land and indicate its limits, rather than merely relying on the area mentioned in the description.
• Strength of Title Principle — A claimant must rely on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim; the plaintiff bears the burden of proving ownership and identity of the property with particularity.
• Approved Survey Plans as Basis for Boundaries — In boundary disputes, approved cadastral survey plans govern over disapproved ones in determining the technical descriptions and boundaries of properties, and reliance on a disapproved survey plan is insufficient to establish the identity of the property sought to be recovered.
• Attorney's Fees as Damages — The award of attorney's fees as damages is the exception rather than the rule; it is not granted every time a party prevails but only when the court deems it just and equitable, or when the civil action is clearly unfounded and the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith.

• "In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim."
• "It is also settled rule that what defines a piece of land is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty, mentioned in the description but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits."
• "The award of attorney's fees as damages is the exception rather than the rule. It is not to be given to the defendant every time the latter prevails. The right to litigate is of great consequence that a penalty should not be charged on those who may exercise it mistakenly unless, of course such party acted in bad faith."

• Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that regional trial courts have jurisdiction over complaints for recovery of ownership or accion reivindicatoria.
• Londres v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that what defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in the description but the boundaries therein laid down as enclosing the land and indicating its limits.
• Heirs of Anastacio Fabela v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that when records do not show that the land subject of the action for recovery has been exactly determined, such action cannot prosper as ownership rights do not appear satisfactorily and conclusively proven.
• Flores v. Intermediate Appellate Court — Cited for the proposition that tax declarations and possession by predecessors-in-interest are insufficient to delineate boundaries.
• Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc. — Cited for the rule that attorney's fees as damages are the exception rather than the rule and require a showing of gross and evident bad faith.

• Article 434 of the Civil Code — Provides that in an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.
• Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Allows the RTC to decide the case brought on appeal from the MTC which, even without jurisdiction over the subject matter, may decide the case on the merits.
• Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution — Mentioned by petitioners regarding the requirement that no petition for review or motion for reconsideration shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.