What Are the Penalties for Altering Boundary Monuments?

Introduction

Moving, destroying, or altering a survey marker between private estates may create civil disputes over ownership and boundaries. It may also constitute a criminal offense under Article 313 of the Revised Penal Code, particularly when a person intentionally changes a monument or mark used to identify the limits of land.

The offense protects the reliability of official and private boundary markers. A landowner cannot lawfully enlarge his property by unilaterally relocating a monument, even when he believes that the existing boundary is incorrect. Boundary disagreements must be resolved through proper survey, administrative proceedings, or judicial action—not self-help.

What Law Governs Altered Boundary Monuments?

Article 313 of the Revised Penal Code punishes any person who alters the boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, estates, or any other marks intended to designate their boundaries. Under the original provision, the penalty was arresto menor, a fine not exceeding P100, or both.

The fine was later adjusted by Section 84 of Republic Act No. 10951. The present provision imposes arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P20,000, or both.

Article 313, as amended by R.A. No. 10951, provides:

“Any person who shall alter the boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same, shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), or both.”

Source: Republic Act No. 10951.

What Acts Are Punishable?

The prohibited conduct includes physically moving, removing, destroying, defacing, or otherwise changing a monument or boundary mark intended to show the limits of an estate. The law is not limited to concrete monuments. It may also cover other identifiable marks used to designate a boundary.

The essential concern is whether the accused altered a marker that had a boundary-designating function. A mere disagreement about the correct location of the boundary does not by itself establish the offense. There must be proof that the physical mark was altered.

Examples may include:

• removing a concrete survey monument from its established location;
• installing the monument several meters inside a neighboring estate;
• destroying a boundary marker to permit fencing or construction beyond the claimed property line;
• replacing an official or recognized marker with another marker that favors the accused; or
• altering a road right-of-way or location monument, when the act falls within Article 313.

Who May Be Liable?

Article 313 applies to “any person.” The accused may therefore be a private landowner, possessor, contractor, caretaker, employee, or another individual who personally carried out or participated in the alteration.

Ownership of the land does not create an exemption. A landowner who believes that a neighboring owner has occupied part of his property must use lawful remedies. The assertion of ownership does not authorize the unilateral movement or destruction of a boundary monument.

Participation must still be established through competent evidence. Mere presence near the monument, ownership of the property, or knowledge of a boundary dispute is not automatically sufficient to prove criminal liability.

What Must Be Proven?

Based on internal knowledge of Philippine law. In general, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

• a boundary mark, monument, or similar marker existed;
• the marker was intended to designate the boundary of an estate or other property;
• the accused altered, moved, removed, destroyed, or otherwise interfered with the marker; and
• the accused acted knowingly and intentionally, rather than through accident or an innocent mistake.

The prosecution does not necessarily need to prove that the accused acquired additional land as a result of the alteration. Article 313 focuses on the integrity of the boundary marker itself. However, evidence that the accused moved the marker to expand a fence, cultivate additional land, or assert possession may help establish intent.

Does Article 313 Require Proof of Actual Ownership?

Not necessarily. The criminal issue is whether a boundary marker was intentionally altered. The criminal case is not the proper proceeding for finally adjudicating ownership or determining the exact extent of the parties’ titles.

Ownership and boundary questions may nevertheless become relevant when determining whether the marker was genuinely intended to designate a boundary. Survey plans, technical descriptions, certificates of title, approved subdivision plans, relocation surveys, and testimony from qualified surveyors may be important evidence.

In Cotabato Timberland Co., Inc. v. Plaridel Lumber Co., Inc., G.R. No. 19432, 1965, the Supreme Court recognized the evidentiary importance of monuments in boundary determinations. The Court stated that monuments control courses and distances as well as the calculated area, absent adequate proof that the monuments had been moved. It also noted that the interference with or removal of survey monuments is criminally punishable by statute.

Source: Cotabato Timberland Co., Inc. v. Plaridel Lumber Co., Inc..

Why Do Monuments Matter in Boundary Disputes?

A technical description may contain courses, distances, bearings, and calculated areas. A monument, however, is a physical reference point placed on the ground. When a genuine and undisturbed monument conflicts with calculated distances or area, the monument may carry greater weight in identifying the actual boundary.

This does not mean that every object described as a marker is conclusive. The parties must establish its identity, location, purpose, and connection with the approved survey or title. Evidence of relocation, defective surveying, or an incorrect monument may be considered by the proper tribunal.

How Is Criminal Intent Shown?

Intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Relevant evidence may include a prior boundary dispute, threats to expand a fence, the timing of the alteration, concealment of the removed marker, construction beyond the disputed line, or the accused’s instructions to workers.

For example, a landowner who commissions a survey and, after being informed of the boundary, directs workers to move a concrete monument several meters outward may face stronger evidence of intentional alteration than a person who accidentally damages an unmarked point while performing ordinary maintenance.

Good-faith reliance on an erroneous survey may be relevant to criminal intent. It does not, however, automatically defeat a complaint. The facts must show whether the conduct was an honest mistake, negligent damage, or a deliberate attempt to change the boundary.

What Is the Present Criminal Penalty?

Offense	Penalty
Altering boundary marks or monuments under Article 313	Arresto menor, a fine not exceeding P20,000, or both

The fine adjustment under R.A. No. 10951 applies to Article 313. In Corpuz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180016, 2014, the Supreme Court explained that courts may not independently revise outdated statutory penalties or monetary thresholds. Changes in the penalties for crimes are matters for Congress.

Source: Corpuz v. People of the Philippines.

How Does the Offense Differ from Related Acts?

Altering a boundary monument may occur together with other offenses. For example, forcing a person away from land may involve violence or intimidation, while taking possession of property through violence or intimidation may implicate Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10951.

Damage to public road markers or facilities may also be governed by special provisions. Section 30 of the Philippine Highway Act of 1953 states that persons who alter boundaries or location monuments or road rights-of-way shall be punished under Article 313 of the Revised Penal Code.

Source: Republic Act No. 917.

Where a monument was placed during a government cadastral survey, other statutory provisions may also apply to interference with the survey or the destruction or removal of government-placed monuments. The precise charge depends on the character of the marker, the authority that placed it, and the applicable law at the time of the alleged act.

What Evidence Should a Complainant Preserve?

A complainant should preserve evidence before repairing, replacing, or relocating the disputed marker. The following materials may be useful:

• dated photographs and videos showing the marker and surrounding property;
• the original survey plan, relocation survey, subdivision plan, or approved technical description;
• certificates of title, tax declarations, deeds, and prior boundary agreements;
• testimony from the surveyor, adjoining owners, workers, or other persons who saw the marker before and after the alteration; and
• records of communications, demands, admissions, threats, or instructions relating to the marker.

A licensed geodetic engineer may conduct a properly documented relocation or verification survey. The survey should identify the source documents used, the control points, the original monument, the alleged new location, and the effect of the alteration on the boundary line.

What Should a Landowner Do When the Boundary Is Disputed?

A landowner should avoid moving the marker, building over the disputed line, or directing workers to alter the site. The safer course is to obtain the title and survey records, notify the adjoining owner in writing, and arrange a joint verification survey where appropriate.

If the dispute remains unresolved, the parties may consider barangay conciliation when legally required, mediation, an action to quiet title or settle the boundary, or another appropriate civil remedy. A criminal complaint may be filed when there is sufficient evidence of an intentional alteration.

In De la Cruz, et al. v. Sagales, et al., G.R. No. 14901, 1960, the Supreme Court held that a complainant may directly file a criminal complaint with the proper court even when a similar complaint is pending before the provincial fiscal, particularly where delay could threaten the prescription of the offense.

Source: De la Cruz, et al. v. Sagales, et al..

What Defenses May Be Available?

A person accused under Article 313 may contest whether the object was a legally or factually recognized boundary marker, whether the accused was the person who altered it, and whether the alteration was intentional. The defense may also challenge the reliability of the survey, the chain of custody of photographs, and the testimony identifying the original location.

An accidental act, such as damage caused by an ordinary farming or construction activity without knowledge that the object was a boundary monument, may raise a substantial issue regarding intent. The defense should support this claim with contemporaneous records, witness testimony, survey evidence, and proof of conduct consistent with good faith.

Prescription must also be examined based on the applicable penalty, the date of discovery when legally relevant, and any acts that interrupt or affect the prescriptive period. Because prescription is fact-sensitive, the exact dates of the alteration, discovery, complaint, and filing of the information should be established.

Practical Recommendations

• Do not move, remove, or replace a disputed survey monument without technical and legal advice.
• Secure certified copies of titles, approved surveys, technical descriptions, and subdivision records.
• Document the marker’s condition immediately through photographs, videos, affidavits, and a professional survey.
• Identify all persons who saw the marker before and after the alleged alteration.
• Separate the criminal issue from the civil boundary or ownership dispute and pursue the appropriate remedies in the proper forum.
• Check the exact date of the alleged act and the current penalty before filing a complaint or preparing a defense.

Conclusion

Article 313 of the Revised Penal Code protects the integrity of boundary marks and monuments used to identify the limits of estates. Under R.A. No. 10951, intentional alteration is punishable by arresto menor, a fine not exceeding P20,000, or both.

A private landowner cannot lawfully expand a property by moving or destroying a survey marker. The decisive issues are the existence and boundary function of the monument, the accused’s participation, and whether the alteration was knowing and intentional. Proper surveys, reliable property records, preserved physical evidence, and timely legal action are essential in both prosecution and defense.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.