1) What “boundary encroachment after a land survey” usually means

A “boundary encroachment” is a physical occupation or improvement that intrudes into land that, by law, belongs to another—often discovered (or confirmed) after a relocation survey or verification survey by a licensed geodetic engineer. Common examples:

A fence line, wall, gate, driveway, septic tank, or extension of a house crosses the titled lot line.
A neighbor’s building is partly on your lot (or vice-versa).
A newly constructed structure follows an assumed boundary that differs from the titled boundary.
A survey reveals overlap between two titled parcels (two certificates of title cover the same area).
Survey monuments (old concrete monuments / BLLM / BBM) are missing or displaced, causing long-standing “practical” boundaries that differ from the technical description.

A survey does not automatically change legal rights by itself. It is technical evidence used to support a claim about where the true boundary lies under the relevant title or proof of ownership/possession.

2) Know your land status first: titled vs. untitled land

Remedies and defenses in boundary disputes depend heavily on whether your land is:

A. Torrens-titled (OCT/TCT under the Torrens system)

Ownership and boundaries are anchored to the certificate of title and its technical description (and the approved survey plan referenced in it).
Prescription/adverse possession generally does not run against registered land (Property Registration Decree, P.D. 1529, Sec. 47).
Challenges to a Torrens title typically require a direct action; a Torrens title generally cannot be attacked collaterally.

B. Untitled private land (tax declaration, possession, deeds, but no OCT/TCT)

Proof relies more on possession, tax declarations, deeds, and other indicia of ownership.
Prescription and acquisitive prescription principles may come into play (subject to many limitations and facts).

C. Public land / land of the public domain (forest land, unclassified, etc.)

Boundary issues may involve DENR land classification, patents, and administrative processes (and disputes can be far more complex).

Most private boundary-encroachment disputes involve either (1) titled-vs-titled, (2) titled-vs-untitled, or (3) untitled-vs-untitled.

3) Why surveys and monuments matter—but don’t always “end” the dispute

A. The legal boundary is tied to the title and approved plan

For titled land, the controlling reference is the title’s technical description and the approved survey plan referred to in the title (e.g., PSD, Psd-xxxxxx; Lot No.; plan number).

B. Monuments and “calls” in descriptions

In practice and in many boundary controversies, courts and survey standards treat monuments as highly persuasive in fixing boundaries. When monuments are missing, reliance shifts to other survey data (bearings/distances), adjacent boundaries, and long-standing references—often requiring expert testimony.

C. Surveys can conflict

Two geodetic engineers can produce different results if:

They used different reference points or assumptions;
Monuments were missing or moved;
Old cadastral data conflicts with later surveys;
There are errors in technical descriptions or plan plotting;
There is an actual overlap in titles.

When that happens, the dispute becomes both technical (survey evidence) and legal (what remedy is proper and what rights exist).

4) The practical first steps (before filing cases)

Even when you are legally correct, boundary disputes are expensive and slow if mishandled early. Typical best-practice sequencing:

A. Secure documents and technical proof

Collect:

OCT/TCT (certified true copy from Registry of Deeds if possible)
Tax declarations and tax receipts
Deeds of sale/donation/partition (if relevant)
Approved plan (blueprint/plan copy, lot data computations)
Relocation survey report, sketches, photos, and geodetic engineer’s certification
Photos/videos of encroachment, with date stamps if possible

B. Confirm the survey type and approvals

A relocation survey re-establishes the lot boundaries based on the approved plan and existing control points. If you anticipate litigation, ensure your geodetic engineer:

Uses proper control points,
Documents methodology,
Prepares a clear, court-friendly sketch,
Can testify if needed.

C. Demand and documentation

A written demand is often important, especially if your eventual remedy includes:

Unlawful detainer (requires demand to vacate/comply),
Proof of bad faith (after notice),
Claims for damages.

D. Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

For many neighbor-vs-neighbor disputes, barangay mediation/conciliation is a precondition before filing in court under the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), unless an exception applies (e.g., parties do not reside in the same city/municipality, urgent legal action like injunction in some contexts, government is a party, etc.). Failure to comply can lead to dismissal for lack of a required condition precedent.

E. Don’t “self-help” beyond what the law allows

The Civil Code recognizes limited self-help to repel unlawful intrusion (Civil Code, Art. 429), but the safe, lawful approach is usually to avoid escalating physical confrontation, especially when structures are involved. Improper self-help can expose you to criminal or civil liability.

5) Core legal concepts that drive the choice of remedy

A. Possession vs. ownership (crucial distinction)

Philippine remedies often depend on whether you are primarily asserting:

Possession (who has the better right to occupy now), or
Ownership (who truly owns the disputed strip), or
Both.

Courts treat these differently and assign them to different actions and timelines.

B. Builders/planters/sowers on another’s land (Civil Code, Arts. 448–455)

Encroachment often involves improvements. The law distinguishes:

Builder/planter in good faith: one who honestly believes they own the land or have the right to build there.
- The landowner generally has options: appropriate the improvement upon payment of indemnity, or require the builder to pay for the land (or pay reasonable rent if the builder cannot pay, depending on circumstances).
Builder in bad faith (knew the land wasn’t theirs): landowner can often demand removal/demolition, damages, and other relief.

Good faith can change after notice—e.g., once a survey and demand clearly establish the boundary, continued construction may become bad faith.

C. Registered land and indefeasibility (P.D. 1529)

Registered land is strongly protected; claims adverse to a Torrens title generally require direct actions (not collateral attacks).
Adverse possession/prescription generally cannot defeat registered title (Sec. 47).

D. Quieting of title (Civil Code, Arts. 476–481)

If an encroachment is tied to conflicting claims or documents creating a “cloud” on your ownership (e.g., overlapping deeds, spurious claim, contradictory descriptions), quieting of title may be appropriate—often paired with reconveyance/cancellation claims when titles overlap.

6) Administrative and registration-related remedies (often overlooked)

A. DENR/LMB technical conflict resolution (survey disputes)

If the heart of the dispute is survey technicals (missing monuments, conflicting plans, overlapping approved surveys), administrative procedures through the DENR’s land management offices can help clarify:

Which plan is controlling,
Whether there is a plotting/technical error,
Whether a resurvey or verification is warranted.

This is especially relevant when the issue is not merely a neighbor putting up a fence, but conflicting survey records.

B. Annotation remedies to protect your claim while disputing

For titled land, two powerful protective annotations under P.D. 1529:

Adverse Claim (Sec. 70) Used when you claim an interest adverse to the registered owner (or to put third parties on notice). It is time-sensitive and has procedural requirements, but can be an effective interim measure.
Notice of Lis Pendens (Sec. 76) Once a case affecting title or right to possession is filed, a lis pendens annotation warns buyers and lenders that the property is in litigation—helpful to prevent sale to an “innocent purchaser” and to preserve practical leverage.

C. Correction/Amendment of certificates of title (P.D. 1529, Sec. 108)

A petition for correction/amendment can be used for clerical or non-controversial corrections (e.g., typographical errors, obvious mistakes) that do not prejudice third parties.

But if the requested correction substantively affects boundaries and another party opposes it (especially if it reduces their apparent area or shifts boundaries), courts typically require a full-blown ordinary civil action, not a summary correction proceeding.

7) Judicial remedies: choosing the right case

Remedy family #1: Ejectment (possession cases under Rule 70, MTC)

A. Forcible Entry

Used when you were deprived of physical possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

Deadline: must generally be filed within one (1) year from the unlawful entry (or from discovery in certain stealth situations, depending on facts).
Court: Municipal Trial Court (MTC/MeTC/MCTC)
Relief: restoration of possession, damages, costs

B. Unlawful Detainer

Used when the occupant’s possession was initially lawful (by tolerance, lease, permission), but became illegal after termination and demand to vacate.

Deadline: within one (1) year from the last demand to vacate/comply.
Court: MTC
Relief: possession, rents/compensation, damages

Boundary angle: Ejectment can be useful when an encroachment is essentially an issue of who should possess the disputed strip right now. However, if the defendant raises ownership via a Torrens title, courts may only discuss title incidentally to decide possession and will not finally settle ownership in ejectment.

Remedy family #2: Accion Publiciana (recovery of possession after 1 year)

When more than one year has passed and you want recovery of possession de jure (better right to possess), you generally file accion publiciana.

Court: depends on jurisdictional thresholds for real actions (assessed value), under B.P. Blg. 129 as amended (notably expanded by later amendments).
Relief: recovery of possession, damages, sometimes injunction

This is often used where the dispute is possession but is no longer within ejectment’s one-year window.

Remedy family #3: Accion Reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership and possession)

If the real issue is ownership of the disputed portion (common in boundary disputes revealed by survey), the proper remedy may be accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership with possession and damages).

Court: depends on assessed value/jurisdiction rules for real actions.
Relief: declaration of ownership, recovery of possession, damages, removal of encroachment/demolition where warranted

This is the more “complete” remedy when you need the court to finally rule who owns the strip of land.

Remedy family #4: Quieting of Title / Removal of Cloud (Civil Code 476–481)

Use this when your title/ownership is being clouded by:

A conflicting claim of boundary,
A document or claim that appears valid but is actually invalid,
Overlap in descriptions creating uncertainty

Quieting of title is frequently paired with:

Cancellation of instruments,
Reconveyance (when someone holds title that should belong to you),
Damages and injunction.

Remedy family #5: Reconveyance / Cancellation when titles overlap or fraud/void title is alleged

If your survey reveals that:

The neighbor’s title overlaps yours, or
A portion of your titled land is titled in another’s name,

you may need a direct action (often in RTC) seeking cancellation/reconveyance, depending on the cause (fraud, mistake, void patent, etc.).

Key considerations (highly fact-dependent):

Whether the other party is an innocent purchaser for value,
Whether the issue is a mistake in technical description or an actual double titling,
Timing and prescriptive periods for certain causes of action (varies by theory: fraud, implied trust, express trust, void titles, etc.),
Whether the land remains in your possession (which can affect remedies and defenses like laches).

8) Provisional and ancillary court remedies (to stop ongoing harm)

A. Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) / Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58)

If construction is ongoing or threatened demolition/harassment is imminent, you may seek:

TRO (short-term stopgap),
Preliminary injunction (to maintain status quo during the case),
In some cases, mandatory injunction (to compel removal/restoration), though courts apply stricter standards for mandatory injunction.

B. Demolition/Removal of encroaching structures

Demolition is typically sought:

As part of a main action (ownership/possession),
With support from Civil Code accession rules (Arts. 448–455),
Especially when bad faith is shown or when the improvement is clearly on another’s land without right.

Courts tend to weigh proportionality and the builder’s good/bad faith, especially if the encroachment is minor versus substantial.

C. Damages and attorney’s fees

Depending on proof:

Actual damages (costs of survey, repairs, lost use, etc.)
Compensatory damages / reasonable compensation for use and occupation
Moral damages (more limited; needs strong factual basis)
Exemplary damages (often tied to bad faith, fraud, wanton conduct)
Attorney’s fees (not automatic; must fit legal grounds and be justified)

9) Encroachment involving buildings: applying Civil Code Arts. 448–455 in real life

When an improvement crosses the boundary, courts often focus on:

Who is the landowner of the occupied portion? Established through title/ownership evidence plus survey proof of identity.
Was the builder in good faith at the time of building? Good faith is typically judged by what the builder reasonably believed then. After receiving a clear survey and demand, continued building may become bad faith.
What remedy is equitable and lawful? Possible outcomes include:

Landowner appropriates improvement upon indemnity;
Builder buys the land portion (or sometimes the affected portion if legally feasible);
Payment of reasonable rent/compensation;
Removal/demolition (especially if bad faith or if appropriation/buy-out is not appropriate).

Boundary encroachments are often partial (a few centimeters to a few meters). That can push negotiations toward adjustment/buy-out, but courts can still order removal if warranted by law and facts.

10) Overlapping titles: the hardest boundary problem

A relocation survey sometimes reveals that two Torrens titles cover the same area (overlap). This is not just an “encroachment” problem; it’s a title conflict problem.

Typical legal themes:

Priority in registration can matter (earlier valid registration generally prevails in many double-titling scenarios).
The remedy is usually a direct action (cancellation/reconveyance/quieting), not merely ejectment.
Courts may examine the chain of title, the original decrees, and survey records.
Administrative survey clarification may help, but courts ultimately settle ownership when competing titles exist.

Because overlapping title disputes implicate indefeasibility doctrines, third-party rights, and technical land registration records, they often require more extensive litigation than a simple fence encroachment.

11) Jurisdiction and venue basics (Philippine setting)

A. Venue (where to file)

Real actions (those involving title or possession of real property) are generally filed where the property is located.

B. Which court (MTC vs RTC)

Ejectment cases (forcible entry/unlawful detainer) are filed in MTC regardless of assessed value.
Other real actions (accion publiciana, reivindicatoria, quieting, reconveyance) are allocated between MTC and RTC primarily by assessed value rules under B.P. Blg. 129 (as amended). The thresholds have been amended over time; the applicable amount depends on the current statute and whether the property is in Metro Manila or outside it.

Because jurisdictional thresholds can change by legislation and can be misapplied if the wrong assessed value is used, parties typically rely on the latest tax declaration and governing law.

12) Evidence that wins (or loses) boundary encroachment cases

Courts commonly look for:

Proof of identity of the land It is not enough to say “that strip is mine.” You need to connect:

Your title’s technical description,
The approved plan,
The monuments/control points,
The disputed occupied area.

Competent survey testimony A licensed geodetic engineer’s testimony and documentation can be decisive, especially where:

Monuments are missing,
Boundary lines are contested,
There is overlap.

Acts of possession and history

Who built the fence and when?
Who has been maintaining/occupying the strip?
Were there prior agreements or tolerances?

Bad faith indicators

Ignoring demand letters,
Continuing construction after notice,
Moving monuments or fences,
Threats or harassment.

13) A decision map: “What case should be filed?”

Scenario 1: You were just dispossessed or a new intrusion happened

Within 1 year → Forcible entry (Rule 70, MTC)

Scenario 2: Neighbor stayed by tolerance or permission; you demanded they vacate; they refused

Within 1 year from last demand → Unlawful detainer (Rule 70, MTC)

Scenario 3: More than 1 year; you want to recover possession

Accion publiciana (court depends on assessed value)

Scenario 4: You need a final ruling on who owns the disputed portion

Accion reivindicatoria (ownership + possession), and/or quieting of title

Scenario 5: Titles overlap / double titling / wrongful titling in another’s name

Quieting of title + reconveyance/cancellation (direct action; often RTC)

Scenario 6: The title/technical description needs minor, non-controversial correction

P.D. 1529, Sec. 108 petition (limited scope; not for contested boundary takings)

Scenario 7: Ongoing construction threatens irreparable harm

Seek injunction (TRO/preliminary injunction) ancillary to the main case

14) Criminal law angles (possible but not automatic)

Boundary encroachment is usually civil, but criminal complaints sometimes arise when there is:

Violence or intimidation in taking property (e.g., usurpation of real property under the Revised Penal Code, depending on elements),
Destruction of fences/markers (malicious mischief),
Falsification involving public documents or survey records,
Threats, coercion, or related offenses.

Criminal liability depends on strict elements and evidence and does not replace the need for the correct civil action to settle ownership/possession.

15) Drafting remedies beyond litigation: settlement structures that “stick”

Because boundary litigation can last years, many disputes settle through:

Boundary agreement with survey attachment, signed and notarized (and implemented through proper subdivision/consolidation if needed).
Sale/exchange of the encroached strip (often the cleanest long-term solution).
Easement or right-of-way agreements (when occupation is functional and both prefer formal permission).
Removal plan with timeline, access rules, and cost allocation.
Annotation strategy (lis pendens/adverse claim) while settlement is negotiated to prevent third-party complications.

For titled land, durable settlements usually require ensuring the agreed boundary is consistent with approved plans and registrable instruments, not just an informal handshake.

16) Key takeaways (Philippine law in one view)

A land survey is powerful evidence but does not, by itself, rewrite legal boundaries; titles and approved plans anchor rights.
The “best” remedy depends on whether you are fighting over possession, ownership, structures, or conflicting titles.
Ejectment is fast but narrow (possession-focused and time-limited).
Accion publiciana and reivindicatoria handle longer-term possession and ownership disputes.
Civil Code accession rules (Arts. 448–455) are central when structures encroach.
For titled land, protect your claim with adverse claim and/or lis pendens when appropriate.
Overlapping titles require direct attacks (quieting/reconveyance/cancellation), not shortcuts.
Barangay conciliation is often a required first step in neighbor disputes.
The most litigation-resistant outcome is a settlement that is survey-anchored and registrable.

This article is for general information and legal education; application of remedies depends on specific facts, documents, and local procedural realities.