[ G. R. No. 16077. September 10, 1921 ] 42 Phil. 119
[ G. R. No. 16077. September 10, 1921 ]
CORPORACION DE PP. DOMINICOS, APPLICANT AND APPELLANT, VS. MARIA LAZARO, OBJECTOR AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
STREET, J.:
The petitioner in this case, Corporacion de PP. Dominicos, instituted several years ago in the Court of Land Registration a proceeding to register the Hacienda de Navotas, a property of considerable extent owned by said petitioner and located in the barrio of Banculase, in the municipality of Navotas, Province of Rizal. Said proceeding was terminated favorably; to the petitioner, and a decree was entered registering said hacienda in its name, according to the plan of survey perfected and adopted in that proceeding. Among the parcels of land comprising the estate thus registered is the parcel K, which adjoins on its northeastern side a property owned by Maria A. Lazaro; and in making the official plan, according to which registration was effected in that proceeding, the Government surveyor laid down a straight line as the boundary between said parcel K and the property of Maria A. Lazaro, which line was so drawn as to connect directly two large and ancient stone monuments (mojones) located respectively at points 5 and 1 of plan A of the petitioner in the present proceeding, said line being identical with the line connecting point 37 with point 1 in the plan Exhibit 2 of Maria A. Lazaro.
After the registration of the Hacienda de Navotas had been thus accomplished, Maria A. Lazaro in the year 1915 proceeded to place barbed wire, mounted on bamboo stakes, along the line 5-1, as aforesaid. The representative or administrator of the petitioner thereupon discovered, so it is alleged, that the line 5-1 is not the true boundary in this area between parcel K of the petitioner and the property of Maria A. Lazaro, and that a mistake had been made in the survey used in the registration proceeding above-mentioned, whereby a strip, containing 2,338 square meters, and lying along the eastern side of line 5-1, had been inadvertently omitted. Accordingly the present proceeding was instituted to register said strip in the name of the petitioner. Opposition was made by Maria A. Lazaro, and the trial court having sustained the opposition, the petitioner appealed.
The petitioner claims that the true line between parcel K and the property of Maria A. Lazaro is not the straight line directly connecting the points 5 and 1 of the plan A but a sinuous line to the east thereof, coinciding approximately with the border of a Canaveral, lying on the premises of Maria A. Lazaro. In this connection it appears that the parcel K is low-lying land, covered by water in the rainy season, if not at all times, and used for a fishery. The low level exhibited in parcel K extends for a few meters eastward of the line 5-1, at which point the general level rises perceptibly and sharply, making it possible for bamboo plants to thrive; and the canaveral already referred to is located upon this ground, forming a higher fringe to the lower land.
The petitioner supposes itself to be the owner of all the low land, including the strip lying to the east of line 5-1, up to the crest of the rise and to the line formed by the margin of the bamboo grove. This contention is rested upon the claim of continuous possession by the petitioner for more than thirty years.
We are of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained and that the trial judge committed no error in sustaining the opposition. The two stone monuments at points 5 and 1 are of course conclusive as to where the true boundary was at the time beyond the recollection of living men when those monuments were placed; and it would be nonsense to suppose that the boundary between those points was then intended to follow the sinuous course now marked by the bamboo grove. There being no intermediate stone or natural monument between those points the connecting line must be taken to be a straight line.
What has actually happened since those monuments were placed is evidently this, namely, that as time has passed the water covering parcel K has gradually eaten away the margin of the higher ground, and this process of detrition has been assisted by the rains falling on the higher ground as well perhaps as by the action of cattle in passing to and fro between the water and the higher ground. The border of the canaveral has thus retreated until its present course coincides with the sinuous line which the petitioner now supposes to mark the true boundary. The retreat, however, of the canaveral did not confer title upon the petitioner to the area thus reduced to the lower level; nor is the case changed by supposing, as the petitioner claims, that it has exercised possession for more than thirty years over the questioned strip. Mere possession under these circumstances is ambiguous; and, as is well recognized, continued possession does not confer title unless it be adverse, and under claim of title exclusive of any other right (sec; 41, C. C. P.). The two stone monuments, standing as sentinels at points 5 and 1, served as a perpetual reminder of the true limits of the land of the petitioner, and it must be assumed that both proprietors of the two adjacent parcels intended to hold as owner to the true boundary and no further.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Johnson, Araullo, Avancena, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.