G.R. No.

111141 March 6, 1998 287 SCRA 102

MARIO Z. TITONG, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (4th Division), VICTORICO LAURIO and ANGELES
LAURIO, respondents.

FACTS:
The case originated from an action for quieting of title over a 20, 000 hectares parcel of land filed by Mario Titong.
Petitioner alleges that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area of 3.2800 hectares.
He claims that 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, Pablo Espinosa on August 10, 1981.
The land was adjudged by the lower court in favor of private respondents, and Angeles Laurio, Aas the true and lawful
owners of the disputed land.
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. On motion for reconsideration, the same was denied for lack of merit. petitioner
comes to us for a favorable reversal. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:
1. Whether or not a claim of ownership by a mere possession for more than twenty (20) years is
meritorious.
2. Whether or not the instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding involved constitutes a
cloud upon the petitioners' interest or title in and to said property.

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.
Upon an examination of the records, the Court finds no evident reason to depart from the general rule.
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 "ownership 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 ". . .
ordinary 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 ten years unless such possession was acquired con justo tilulo y buena fe (with color
of title and good faith).
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." 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).
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, the tax declaration in his name, the commissioner's report on the relocation survey, and the survey
plan. Respondent court correctly held that these documents do not conclusively demonstrate petitioner's title
over Lot Nos. 3918-A and 3606.
A survey under a proprietary title is not a conveyance. It is an instrument sui generis in the nature of a
partition; Therefore, a survey, not being a conveyance, is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
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. 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.
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. It is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership. 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.

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.