PONS REALTY v CA
FACTS:
Pon's Realty Corporation is the registered
owner of the parcels of land claimed by him
pursuant to Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
258006, 285005 and 179173, which were
derived from Original Certificates of Title Nos.
4420 and 978 and 355, respectively, issued on
March 5, 1931 and November 10, 1916 and
August 21, 1907, respectively. -
Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 allegedly
conferred hundreds of thousands of hectares in
Bulacan, Rizal, Quezon, Quezon City, and
Caloocan in the name of the deceased Don
Mariano San Pedro y Esteban -
Plaintiff Prudencio G. Falcis, is sueing in his
capacity as an Administrator-Plenipotentiary-
Extraordinary Xerox copy of the appointment is
hereto attached as ANNEX A hereof, and as
Attorney-in-fact of the heirs of the Estate and
administrator of their respective shares as
Extra-Judicially settled among the heirs
themselves, pursuant to the instrument
entitled 'Reconfirmation and Ratification of
whatever Power and Authority vested in
Prudencio G. Falcis, etc., xerox copies of which
as ANNEXES B, B-1 to B-5 , while plaintiff-
ALEJANDRO J. VICTORINO and EDDIE S. YAP
Filipino, of legal age, married, hereinafter
referred to as the plaintiff-lot-buyers,
evidenced by copies of Deed of Conditional
Sale
ISSUE: WoN Falcis had the personality to assail
the registration of the titles held by Pons
Realty Co
RULING:
After an opposition was filed by private-
respondent, the trial court denied the motion
and the decision of the Court of Appeals under
review sustained said denial. We do not
hesitate in holding that the complaint in
question should have been dismissed, if only
because as an action to nullify and cancel the
torrens titles in dispute
, it is not the proper remedy under the Land
Registration Act and the jurisprudence
thereunder concerning the indefeasibility of the
decrees of registration on which said titles are
based after one year from their issuance,
which took place way back, at the latest in
1931, and as a suit for damages, it cannot
prosper against herein petitioner who was not
the original registrant but a mere second
transferee, as evidenced by the annotation on
the said titles themselves
, Moreover, inasmuch as it is alleged in the
complaint that the lands claimed by private
respondent on behalf of his supposed principals
are alleged to constitute part of the estate of
Don Mariano San Pedro whose estate is under
administration in Special Proceedings No. 312-
B of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan
, the suit can be filed only by the judicial
administrator of that estate or another person
duly authorized by the probate court.
Additionally, the Court is of the considered
opinion that the above-quoted supposed
Appointment in favor of respondent Falcis as
"Administrator-Plenipotentiary-Extraordinary"
is on its face so irregular, the language and
matter treated therein being obviously
impossible to have been officially the act of any
President of the Philippines, that it cannot and
should not be given recognition by anyone,
much less the courts. Private respondent Falcis
has no legal personality to file the complaint in
issue.
FRANCISCO vs CA
VDA. DE AVILES v. CA
An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may
not be brought for the purpose of settling a
boundary dispute.
FACTS:
Eduardo Aviles, the predecessor of the
petitioners is the bother of defendant Camilo.
They inherited their lands from their parents
and have agreed to subdivide the same
amongst themselves. The area alloted (sic) to
Eduardo Aviles is 16,111 square meters more
or less, to Anastacio Aviles is 16,214 square
meters more or less, while the area alloted to
defendant Camilo Aviles is 14,470 square
meters more or less.
Defendants land composed of the riceland
portion of his land is 13,290 square meters,
the fishpond portion is 500 square meters and
the residential portion is 680 square meters, or
a total of 14,470 square meters.
The Petitioners claim that they are the owners
of the fish pond which they claim is within their
area. Defendant Camilo Aviles asserted a color
of title over the northern portion of the
property with an area of approximately 1,200
square meters by constructing a bamboo fence
(thereon) and moving the earthen dikes,
thereby molesting and disturbing the peaceful
possession of the plaintiffs over said portion.
Petitioners say that the fences were created to
unduly encroach to their property but the
defendant said that he merely reconstructed
the same.

Petitioners brought an action to quiet title but

were denied thus this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners filed the

right action

RULING:
No, Petitioners filed the wrong action. This is
obviously a boundary dispute and as such the
action must fail.

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.

Petitioners fail to point out any any instrument,

record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that
could been a cloud to their title. In 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 to them and that the only
controversy is whether these lands were
properly measured.

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. An action
for forcible entry, whenever warranted by the
period prescribed in Rule 70, or for recovery of
possession de facto, also within the prescribed
period, may be availed of by the petitioners, in
which proceeding the boundary dispute may be
fully threshed out.

LARAGAN vs. CA

YABUT LEE vs PUNZALAN

GUTTIEREZ HERMANOS vs CA