VDA DE AVILES v CA November 21, 1996 FACTS: Petitioners: Anastacia Vda. De Aviles et. al.

Respondents: Court of Appeals and Camilo Aviles

Eduardo Aviles family has been in actual possession of a parcel of land described as a fishpond, cogonal, unirrigated rice and residential land, situated in Malawa, Lingayen, Pangasinan since 1957. This property is his share in the estate of his deceased parents. The respective areas allotted to them had been agreed upon and were measured before the execution of the agreement. Because he had several children to support, Eduardo asked for a bigger share and Camilo agreed to have a smaller area. Eduardo mortgaged the property with the Rural Bank and Phil. National Bank branch in Lingayen. When the property was inspected by a bank representative, Eduardo, in the presence of the boundary owners (defendant Camilo Aviles, Anastacio Aviles and Juana and Apolonio Joaquin) pointed to the inspector the existing earthen dikes as the boundary limits of the property and nobody objected. The real estate mortgage was foreclosed and the property was sold at public auction, but it was redeemed by plaintiffs mother and the land was subsequently transferred and declared in her name. In 1983, defendant Camilo Aviles moved the earthen dikes and constructed a bamboo fence on the northern portion of Eduardos property, thereby molesting and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over said portion. Petitioners filed this special civil action for quieting of title TC: dismissed the complaint CA: affirmed TC decision, reasoning that 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.

ISSUE/HELD: WON a complaint for quieting of title is not the proper remedy but rather it should be a case for ejectment - YES The facts presented unmistakably constitute a clear case of boundary dispute, which is not cognizable in a special civil action to quiet title. To avail of the remedy of quieting of title, a plaintiff must show that there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which constitutes or casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon the owners title to or interest in real property. In this case, the only controversy is whether these lands were properly measured. There is no adverse claim by the defendant

which constitutes a cloud thereon. Documents (those executed by private respondent and his brothers, as well as the Deed of Sale evidencing the redemption by petitioner Anastacia of the subject property in a foreclosure sale) in no way constitute a cloud or cast a doubt upon the title of petitioners. Rather, the uncertainty arises from the parties failure to situate and fix the boundary between their respective properties.

Petition DENIED and decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.