Boundary dispute

This is the more common cause of suits between adjacent owners. This case between the spouses Andoy and Nina and the nine heirs of Leon headed by Noel gives the rule on the settlement of the dispute.

Andoy and Nina and the Leon heirs are the respective owners of two adjoining parcels of land located in La Union. The spouses’ land with an approximate area of 12,674 square meters under Tax Declaration No. 4506 originally in the name of Andoy’s mother is at the western side while the land of the Leon heirs with an area of about 5,370 square meters under Tax Declaration No. 6473 is at the western side. The two properties have a creek running from south to north as common boundary such that the spouses’ property is bounded by said creek on the west while that of the heirs is bounded by the said creek on the east. Located at the northern portions of the adjoining properties is an irrigation canal of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA). Due to constant heavy rains and flood, water from the creek overflowed and destroyed said canal. In order to minimize the damage to the irrigation canal, the NIA diverted the course of the creek so the rainwater will not go directly to the canal. As a result, the course of the creek now runs from south to northwest passing through the middle portion of the property of Leon’s heirs and resulting in the formation of a new creek that served as NIA’s irrigation canal with Noel’s consent.

The portion segregated by the new creek consisting of 1,336.5 square meters became the subject of the dispute when Noel saw the carabao of the spouses devouring their sugar cane crops planted thereon. It was then that Noel discovered that the spouses had encroached on the said portion and had in fact occupied it. When the spouses refused to surrender said portion despite repeated demands of Noel and his siblings, the latter sued them to recover possession of said strip of land.

For their defense, the spouses claimed that said strip of land was part of their property originally owned by Andoy’s mother with a bigger area of 12,674 sq. m. They said that no new creek was created and that the existing creek is the same creek that bounds their property on the west, thus making them the owners of the questioned property. They further averred that when Noel started cultivating the subject strip of land in 1950 and planted crops thereon, it was only upon mere tolerance of Andoy’s mother.

Based on the witness’ testimonies amply supported by the report and the sketch plan prepared by a geodetic engineer appointed by the Court as commissioner, the existence of an old creek running from south to north, and the creation of a new creek from south to northwest was clearly established. The said court also found from the evidence presented that the disputed property is part of the land originally declared in the name of Leon, the father of Noel and his siblings. These findings were sustained by the Court of Appeals.

But, the spouses insisted that the testimonies of the witnesses are replete with inconsistencies and contradictions and not in harmony with the state of affairs in the locality rendering them unworthy of belief. Hence, the spouses claimed that the complaint of the Leon heirs lacks the quantum of proof showing their ownership of the disputed land. Were the spouses correct?

No. 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 (Article 434 Civil Code). Hence, in order that an action for recovery of property may prosper, it is indispensable that the party who prosecutes it must fully prove, not only the ownership of the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same.

The evidence presented in this case showed that the disputed property rightfully belongs to the Leon heirs, as it was established that the same is part of the parcel of land declared under the name of their father. Indeed the verification survey conducted by the geodetic engineer commissioned by the court revealed that it was in the name of their father. Too, the identity of the disputed land has been proven in a conclusive manner as its location corresponds with those given by the witnesses and the record of the ocular inspection. Matters of credibility of witnesses are best addressed to the sound judgment of the Trial Court that has the singular opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their manner of testifying. The said court’s assessment should not be disturbed. The Cadastral survey of the property clearly identifies and delineates the extent of the subject land. There used to be an old creek originally running from south to north and separating the property of the spouses from the property of the heirs. Then due to expediency and necessity of protecting the irrigation canal in the area, the course of the creek was subsequently diverted to run from south to northwest cutting through the property of the heirs. As the spouses failed to substantiate their claim that the present creek is still the same creek which bounds their property on the west, the Leon heirs have the right to recover the disputed strip as it continues to be their property and they shall retain ownership of the same (Pang-Oden vs. Leonen et. al. G.R. 138939, December 6, 2006).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]