QUIETING OF TITLE: Is the special civil action of Quieting of Title under Rule 64 the proper remedy for settling a boundary dispute?

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. ⁹

The Civil Code authorizes the said remedy in the following language:

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.

In fine, 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 owner's title to or interest in real property. Thus, petitioners have wholly misapprehended the import of the foregoing rule by claiming that respondent Court erred in holding that there was "no . . . evidence of any muniment of title, proceeding, written contract, . . .", and that there were, as a matter of fact, two such contracts, viz., (i) the Agreement of Partition executed by private respondent and his brothers (including the petitioners' father and predecessor-in-interest), in which their respective shares in the inherited property were agreed upon, and (ii) the Deed of Sale evidencing the redemption by petitioner Anastacia Vda. de Aviles of the subject property in a foreclosure sale. However, these documents 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.

As correctly held by the respondent Court, "(i)n 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 (sic) to them and that the only controversy is whether these lands were properly measured. There is no adverse claim by the defendant "which is apparently valid, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable" and which constitutes a cloud thereon.

Corollarily, and equally as clear, the construction of the bamboo fence enclosing the disputed property and the moving of earthen dikes are not the "clouds" or "doubts" which can be removed in an action for quieting of title.

An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not be brought for the purpose of settling a boundary dispute. The precedent on this matter cited by the respondent Court in its Decision is herewith reproduced in full: ¹⁰

In Ashurst v. McKenzie (1890) 92 Ala. 484, 9 So. 262, where the complainants' predecessor in title and the defendant had, during their occupancy, destroyed and obliterated the boundary line between their adjoining tracts of land, and there was now a dispute as to its location, it was held that a bill did not lie to remove a cloud on the complainants' title. The court said: "There is no allegation or evidence of any muniment of title, proceeding, written contract, or paper showing any color of title in the defendant, which could cast a shadow on the title of complainants to any part of the land; there is no overlapping of description in the muniments held by either. The land of complainants and defendant join. The line which separates them is in dispute and is to be determined by evidence aliunde. Each admits that the other has title up to his line wherever it may be, and the title papers of neither fix its precise location. So that there is no paper the existence of which clouds the title of either party, and nothing could be delivered up and canceled under the decree of the court undertaking to remove a cloud.

Another similarly instructive precedent reported in the same reference is also quoted below:

In Kilgannon v. Jenkinson (1883) 51 Mich. 240, 16 N.W. 390, the court, dismissing a bill to quiet title, said: "The fundamental dispute is about the correct position of the line between lots 3 and 7. The case is not one where a complainant in possession of a specific piece of land, and a defendant out of possession, but claiming some right or title, are contending as to which one has the better right to that same parcel; but it is a case where the titles are not opposed, and the basis and existence of all right and claim depend simply upon where the original line runs. When that is once settled, there can remain no semblance of claim or cloud to be passed on, and the issue on that particular question is one regularly triable at law. . . ^{11quieting o}

ANASTACIA VDA. DE AVILES, ET AL., petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and CAMILO AVILES, respondents.G.R. No. 95748 November 21, 1996