G.R. No. 168943 October 27, 2006 reconstituted as TCT No.

RT-110323, based on the owner’s duplicate

of TCT No. 57272. Sometime in February 1996, plaintiffs learned that
IGLESIA NI CRISTO, petitioner, defendant was claiming ownership over the property based on TCT
vs. No. 321744 issued on September 18, 1984 which, on its face,
HON. THELMA A. PONFERRADA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, cancelled TCT No. 320898, under the name of the Philippine National
Regional Trial Court, Br. 104, Quezon City, and HEIRS OF ENRIQUE G. Bank, which allegedly cancelled TCT No. 252070 in the names of the
SANTOS, respondents. spouses Marcos and Romana dela Cruz. They insisted that TCT Nos.
321744, 320898 and 252070 were not among the titles issued by the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City and even if the Register of Deeds
issued said titles, it was contrary to law. Enrique Santos, during his
DECISION lifetime, and his heirs, after his death, never encumbered or disposed
the property. In 1996, plaintiffs had the property fenced but
CALLEJO, SR, J.: defendant deprived them of the final use and enjoyment of their
property.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 72686 and its Resolution2 denying Plaintiffs prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered
the motion for reconsideration of the said decision. in their favor, thus:

On October 24, 2001, Alicia, Alfredo, Roberto, Enrique and Susan, all WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after due hearing,
surnamed Santos, and Sonia Santos-Wallin, represented by Enrique judgment be rendered quieting the title of plaintiffs over
G. Santos, filed a complaint3 for Quieting of Title and/or Accion and/or recover possession of their said property in the name
Reinvindicatoria before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City of deceased Enrique Santos, covered by said TCT No. RT-
against the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), defendant therein. 110323(57272) of the Register of Deeds at Quezon City and
that:
Plaintiffs alleged therein that, during his lifetime, Enrique Santos was
the owner of a 936-square-meter parcel of land located in Tandang 1. The title of defendant, TCT No. 321744 be ordered
Sora, Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. cancelled by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City;
57272 issued by the Register of Deeds on July 27, 1961 which
cancelled TCT No. 57193-289. He had been in possession of the 2. The defendant be ordered to pay plaintiffs’ claims
owner’s duplicate of said title and had been in continuous, open, for actual damages in the sum of P100,000.00;
adverse and peaceful possession of the property. He died on
February 9, 1970 and was survived by his wife, Alicia Santos, and 3. The defendant be ordered to pay plaintiffs’ claims
other plaintiffs, who were their children. Thereafter, plaintiffs took for compensatory damages in the sum of at
peaceful and adverse possession of the property, and of the owner’s least P1,000,000.00;
duplicate of said title. When the Office of the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City was burned on June 11, 1988, the original copy of said 4. The defendant be ordered to pay plaintiffs’ claims
title was burned as well. The Register of Deeds had the title for reimbursement of the lawyer’s professional fees
 consisting of the aforesaid P50,000.00 acceptance (Sgd.)
fee and reimbursement of the said success fee in par.
10 above; and lawyer’s expenses of P2,000.00 for ENRIQUE G. SANTOS
each hearing in this case;
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of
5. The defendant be ordered to pay expenses and October 2001 at Pasig City, affiant exhibiting to me his CTC
costs of litigation in the sum of at least P200,000.00. No. 07303074 issued at Sta. Cruz, Laguna on April 16, 2001.

Other reliefs that are just and equitable in the premises are, (Sgd.)
likewise, prayed for.4
PETER FRANCIS G. ZAGALA
As gleaned from the caption of the complaint, plaintiffs appear to Notary Public
be the heirs of Enrique Santos, represented by Enrique G. Santos. The Until December 31, 2002
latter signed the Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping PTR No. 0287069
which reads: Issued on 1-10-01
At Pasig City5
I, ENRIQUE G. SANTOS, of legal age, under oath, state that I
am one of the children of the late Enrique Santos and I Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint on the following
represent the heirs of said Enrique Santos who are my co- grounds: (1) plaintiffs failed to faithfully comply with the procedural
plaintiffs in the above-captioned case and that I directed the requirements set forth in Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
preparation of the instant complaint, the contents of which Procedure; (2) the action (either Quieting of Title or Accion
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and the Reinvindicatoria) had prescribed, the same having been filed only
attachments are faithful reproductions of the official copies on October 24, 2001 beyond the statutory ten-year period therefor;
in my possession. and (3) that the complaint is defective in many respects.6

I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action Defendant asserted that the case involved more than one plaintiff
or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme but the verification and certification against forum shopping
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or incorporated in the complaint was signed only by Enrique Santos.
any other tribunal or agency, and to the best of my Although the complaint alleges that plaintiffs are represented by
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Enrique Santos, there is no showing that he was, indeed, authorized
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions to so represent the other plaintiffs to file the complaint and to sign
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, and that I shall notify the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.7 Thus,
this Commission within three days from notice that a similar plaintiffs failed to comply with Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending thereat. Defendant cited the ruling of this Court in Loquias v. Office of the
Ombudsman.8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby affix my signature this 23rd day
of October 2001 at Pasig City, Metro Manila.
Defendant maintained that the complaint is defective in that, The trial court issued an Order11 denying defendant’s motion to
although there is an allegation that Enrique Santos represents the dismiss. It declared that since Enrique Santos was one of the heirs, his
other heirs, there is nothing in the pleading to show the latter’s signature in the verification and certification constitutes substantial
authority to that effect; the complaint fails to aver with particularity compliance with the Rules. The court cited the ruling of this Court
the facts showing the capacity of defendant corporation to sue and in Dar v. Alonzo-Legasto.12 The court, likewise, held that prescription
be sued; and the pleading does not state the address of plaintiffs. had not set in and that failure to state the address of plaintiffs in the
Defendant likewise averred that the complaint should be dismissed complaint does not warrant the dismissal of the complaint.
on the ground of prescription. It argued that plaintiffs anchor their
claim on quieting of title and considering that they are not in Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court
possession of the land in question, their cause of action prescribed likewise denied in an Order13 dated July 10, 2002.
after ten years. On the other hand, if the supposed right of plaintiffs
is based on accion reinvindicatoria, prescription would set in after 10 Unsatisfied, defendant, as petitioner, filed a Petition
years from dispossession. In both cases, defendant asserts, the for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a
reckoning point is 1984 when defendant acquired TCT No. 321744 Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction14 before
and possession of the land in question. the CA, raising the following issues:

In their Comment9 on the motion, plaintiffs averred that the I.

relationship of a co-owner to the other co-owners is fiduciary in
character; thus, anyone of them could effectively act for another for WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED AND
the benefit of the property without need for an authorization. ABUSED HER DISCRETION WHEN SHE HELD THAT THE
Consequently, Enrique Santos had the authority to represent the CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING SIGNED BY
other heirs as plaintiffs and to sign the verification and certification ENRIQUE G. SANTOS ALONE IS A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
against forum shopping.10 On the issue of prescription, plaintiffs WITH SECTION 5, RULE 7 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
argued that the prescriptive period for the actions should be PROCEDURE, IN CLEAR CONTRAVENTION OF THE RULES OF
reckoned from 1996, when defendant claimed ownership over the COURT, AND THE RULING IN LOQUIAS V. OFFICE OF THE
property and barred plaintiffs from fencing their property, not in 1984 OMBUDSMAN, G.R. NO. 1399396 (SIC), AUGUST 16, 2000, 338
when TCT No. 321744 was issued by the Register of Deeds in the SCRA 62, AND ORTIZ V. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 127393,
name of defendant as owner. 299 SCRA 708 (DECEMBER 4, 1998).

In its reply, defendant averred that absent any authority from his co- II.
heirs, Enrique Santos must implead them as plaintiffs as they are
indispensable parties. In response, plaintiffs aver that a co-owner of WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED AND
a property can execute an action for quieting of title without ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN APPLYING THE RULING IN DAR, ET.
impleading the other co-owners. AL. V. HON. ROSE MARIE ALONZO-LEGASTO, ET. AL., G.R. NO.
143016, AUGUST 30, 2000 TO THE INSTANT CASE.
 III. (petitioner) has been in actual possession of the property since 1984
when TCT No. 321744 was issued to it by the Register of Deeds. This is
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED AND evident from the nature of a reinvindicatory action itself – which is
ABUSED HER DISCRETION WHEN SHE HELD THAT THE AUTHORITY an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over the subject
OF ENRIQUE G. SANTOS TO REPRESENT HIS CO-HEIRS IN THE parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. By their
FILING OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE "INC" IS A MATTER OF action, respondents thereby admitted that petitioner was in actual
EVIDENCE. possession of the property, and as such, respondents’ action for
quieting of title or accion reinvindicatoria may prescribe in ten (10)
IV. years from 1984 or in 1994, it appearing that it acted in good faith
when it acquired the property from the registered owner,
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED AND conformably with Article 555(4) of the New Civil Code.
ABUSED HER DISCRETION WHEN SHE HELD THAT THE ACTION
FOR QUIETING OF TITLE AND/OR ACCION REINVINDICATORIA On April 7, 2005, the CA rendered the assailed decision17 dismissing
(CIVIL CASE NO. Q-01-45415) HAS NOT YET PRESCRIBED.15 the petition, holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of its
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying
Petitioner averred that, of the plaintiffs below, only plaintiff Enrique petitioner’s motion to dismiss. As the Court held in DAR v. Alonzo-
Santos signed the verification and certification of non-forum Legasto18 and in Gudoy v. Guadalquiver,19 the certification signed
shopping. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil by one with respect to a property over which he shares a common
Procedure, all the plaintiffs must sign, unless one of them is authorized interest with the rest of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) substantially
by a special power of attorney to sign for and in behalf of the others. complied with the Rules. As to the issue of prescription, the appellate
Petitioner argues that the bare claim of Enrique Santos that he court held that the prescriptive period should be reckoned from
signed the verification and certification in his behalf and of the other 1996, when petitioner claimed ownership and barred respondents
plaintiffs who are his co-heirs/co-owners of the property does not from fencing the property.
even constitute substantial compliance of the rule. Contrary to the
ruling of the trial court, the absence or existence of an authority of Petitioner is now before this Court on petition for review on certiorari,
Enrique Santos to sign the verification and certification for and in raising the following issues:
behalf of his co-plaintiffs is not a matter of evidence. The defect is
fatal to the complaint of respondents and cannot be cured by an I.
amendment of the complaint. The trial court erred in applying the
ruling of this Court in Dar v. Alonzo-Legasto.16 WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING
THAT THE CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING SIGNED
Petitioner maintained that the action of respondents, whether it be BY RESPONDENT ENRIQUE G. SANTOS ALONE IS A SUBSTANTIAL
one for quieting of title or an accion reinvindicatoria, had prescribed COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5, RULE 7 OF THE 1997 RULES OF
when the complaint was filed on October 24, 2001. Petitioner asserts CIVIL PROCEDURE AND IN APPLYING THE CASE OF GUDOY V.
that this is because when respondents filed their complaint, they GUADALQUIVER, 429 SCRA 723, WITHOUT REGARD TO MORE
were not in actual or physical possession of the property, as it RECENT JURISPRUDENCE.
 II. other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a
sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
HELD THAT THE AUTHORITY OF RESPONDENT ENRIQUE G. action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any
SANTOS TO REPRESENT HIS CO-HEIRS IN THE FILING OF THE court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS A MATTER OF knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
EVIDENCE. (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should
III. thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
THAT THE ACTION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE AND/OR ACCION complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
REINVINDICATORIA (CIVIL CASE NO. Q-01-45415) HAS NOT YET
PRESCRIBED.20 Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not
be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
Petitioner reiterated its arguments in support of its petition in the CA initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the
as its arguments in support of its petition in the present case. case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court on verification certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings
and certification against forum shopping read: therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal
Sec. 4. Verification. – Except when otherwise specifically actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
verified or accompanied by affidavit. ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read administrative sanctions.
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic The purpose of verification is simply to secure an assurance that the
records. allegations of the petition (or complaint) have been made in good
faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This
A pleading required to be verified which contains a requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings,
verification based on "information and belief" or upon and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally
"knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. requirement.21

Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or

principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or
The issue in the present case is not the lack of verification but the against respondents for quieting of title and damages, as such, they
sufficiency of one executed by only one of plaintiffs. This Court held all have joint interest in the undivided whole; and Dar v. Alonzo-
in Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,22 that the verification Legasto,27 where the Court sustained the certification signed by only
requirement is deemed substantially complied with when, as in the one of the spouses as they were sued jointly involving a property in
present case, only one of the heirs-plaintiffs, who has sufficient which they had a common interest.
knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the
petition (complaint), signed the verification attached to it. Such It is noteworthy that in all of the above cases, the Court applied the
verification is deemed sufficient assurance that the matters alleged rule on substantial compliance because of the commonality of
in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, interest of all the parties with respect to the subject of the
not merely speculative. controversy.

The same liberality should likewise be applied to the certification Applying the doctrines laid down in the above cases, we find and
against forum shopping. The general rule is that the certification must so hold that the CA did not err in affirming the application of the rule
be signed by all plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of on substantial compliance. In the instant case, the property involved
them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed in a number is a 936-square-meter real property. Both parties have their
of cases that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote respective TCTs over the property. Respondents herein who are
and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should plaintiffs in the case below have a common interest over the
not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own property being the heirs of the late Enrique Santos, the alleged
ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial registered owner of the subject property as shown in one of the TCTs.
compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the As such heirs, they are considered co-owners pro indiviso of the
certification. This is because the requirement of strict compliance whole property since no specific portion yet has been adjudicated
with the provisions merely underscores its mandatory nature in that to any of the heirs. Consequently, as one of the heirs and principal
the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its party, the lone signature of Enrique G. Santos in the verification and
requirements completely disregarded.23 certification is sufficient for the RTC to take cognizance of the case.
The commonality of their interest gave Enrique G. Santos the
The substantial compliance rule has been applied by this Court in a authority to inform the RTC on behalf of the other plaintiffs therein
number of cases: Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile,24where the Court that they have not commenced any action or claim involving the
sustained the validity of the certification signed by only one of same issues in another court or tribunal, and that there is no other
petitioners because he is a relative of the other petitioners and co- pending action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the
owner of the properties in dispute; Heirs of Agapito T. Olarte v. Office same issues. Hence, the RTC correctly denied the motion to dismiss
of the President of the Philippines,25 where the Court allowed a filed by petitioner.
certification signed by only two petitioners because the case
involved a family home in which all the petitioners shared a common Considering that at stake in the present case is the ownership and
interest; Gudoy v. Guadalquiver,26 where the Court considered as possession over a prime property in Quezon City, the apparent merit
valid the certification signed by only four of the nine petitioners of the substantive aspects of the case should be deemed as a
because all petitioners filed as co-owners pro indiviso a complaint
special circumstance or compelling reason to allow the relaxation We uphold the validity of the complaint because of the following
of the rule. circumstances: (1) the caption of the instant case is Heirs of Enrique
Santos v. Iglesia ni Cristo;33 (2) the opening statement of the
Time and again, this Court has held that rules of procedure are complaint states that plaintiffs are the heirs of Enrique Santos and
established to secure substantial justice. Being instruments for the likewise names the particular heirs of the latter who instituted the
speedy and efficient administration of justice, they may be used to complaint below;34 (3) the case involves a property owned by the
achieve such end, not to derail it. In particular, when a strict and predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs therein;35 and (4) the verification
literal application of the rules on non-forum shopping and signed by Enrique G. Santos clearly states that he is one of the
verification will result in a patent denial of substantial justice, these children of the late Enrique Santos and that he represents the heirs
may be liberally construed.28 The ends of justice are better served of said Enrique Santos.36
when cases are determined on the merits – after all parties are given
full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses – rather than On the issue of prescription of action, petitioner avers that the action
on technicality or some procedural imperfections.29 of respondents is one to quiet title and/or accion reinvindicatoria,
and that respondents asserted ownership over the property and
Indeed, this Court strictly applied the rules on verification and sought the recovery of possession of the subject parcel of land. It
certification against forum shopping as in the cases of Loquias v. insists that the very nature of the action presupposes that
Office of the Ombudsman30 and Tolentino v. Rivera.31 However, in respondents had not been in actual and material possession of the
both cases, the commonality of interest between or among the property, and that it was petitioner which had been in possession of
parties is wanting. In Loquias, the co-parties were being sued in their the property since 1984 when it acquired title thereon. The action of
individual capacities as mayor, vice mayor and members of the respondent prescribed in ten years from 1984 when petitioner
municipal board. In Tolentino, the lone signature of Tolentino was allegedly dispossessed respondents, in accordance with Article
held insufficient because he had no authority to sign in behalf of the 555(4) of the New Civil Code.
Francisco spouses. In such case, the Court concluded that Tolentino
merely used the spouses’ names for whatever mileage he thought The contention of petitioner has no merit. The nature of an action is
he could gain. It is thus clear from these cases that the commonality determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the
of interest is material in the relaxation of the Rules. character of the relief sought by plaintiff, and the law in effect when
the action was filed irrespective of whether he is entitled to all or only
Anent the issue of the authority of Enrique G. Santos to represent his some of such relief.37 As gleaned from the averments of the
co-heirs/co-plaintiffs, we find no necessity to show such authority. complaint, the action of respondents was one for quieting of title
Respondents herein are co-owners of the subject property. As such under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Article 476 of the
co-owners, each of the heirs may properly bring an action for New Civil Code. The latter provision reads:
ejectment, forcible entry and detainer, or any kind of action for the
recovery of possession of the subject properties. Thus, a co-owner Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or
may bring such an action, even without joining all the other co- any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record,
owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid
for the benefit of all.32 or effective but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective,
 voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said Admittedly, respondents interposed the alternative reinvindicatory
title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to action against petitioner. An accion reinvindicatoria does not
quiet the title. necessarily presuppose that the actual and material possession of
the property is on defendant and that plaintiff seeks the recovery of
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from such possession from defendant. It bears stressing that an accion
being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein. reinvindicatoria is a remedy seeking the recovery of ownership and
includes jus possidendi, jus utendi, and jus fruendi as well. It is an
A cloud is said to be a semblance of a title, either legal or equitable, action whereby a party claims ownership over a parcel of land and
or a cloud of an interest in land appearing in some legal form but seeks recovery of its full possession.41 Thus, the owner of real property
which is, in fact, unfounded, or which it would be inequitable to in actual and material possession thereof may file an accion
enforce.38 An action for quieting of title is imprescriptible until the reinvindicatoria against another seeking ownership over a parcel of
claimant is ousted of his possession.39 land including jus vindicandi, or the right to exclude defendants from
the possession thereof. In this case, respondents filed an alternative
The owner of a real property, as plaintiff, is entitled to the relief of reinvindicatory action claiming ownership over the property and the
quieting of title even if, at the time of the commencement of his cancellation of TCT No. 321744 under the name of petitioner. In fine,
action, he was not in actual possession of real property. After all, they sought to enforce their jus utendi and jus vindicandi when
under Article 477 of the New Civil Code, the owner need not be in petitioner claimed ownership and prevented them from fencing the
possession of the property. If on the face of TCT No. 321744 under the property.
name of plaintiff, its invalidity does not appear but rests partly in pais,
an action for quieting of title is proper.40 Since respondents were in actual or physical possession of the
property when they filed their complaint against petitioner on
In the present case, respondents herein, as plaintiffs below, alleged October 24, 2001, the prescriptive period for the reinvindicatory
in their complaint, that their father, Enrique Santos, was the owner of action had not even commenced to run, even if petitioner was able
the property based on TCT No. 57272 issued on July 27, 1961; and to secure TCT No. 321744 over the property in 1984. The reason for
that, after his death on February 9, 1970, they inherited the property; this is that
Enrique Santos, during his lifetime, and respondents, after the death
of the former, had been in actual, continuous and peaceful x x x one who is in actual possession of a piece of land
possession of the property until 1994 when petitioner claimed claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession
ownership based on TCT No. 321744 issued on September 18, 1984 is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to
and barred respondents from fencing their property. vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being, that his
undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek
Petitioner’s claim that it had been in actual or material possession of the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the
the property since 1984 when TCT No. 321744 was issued in its favor nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on
is belied by the allegations in the complaint that respondents had his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is
been in actual and material possession of the property since 1961 in possession.42
up to the time they filed their complaint on October 24, 2001.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The decision the title of plaintiffs over and/or recover possession of their said
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72686 is AFFIRMED. Costs property in the name of deceased Enrique Santos.
against petitioner.
•Petitioner argues that the action (either Quieting of Title or Accion
Reinvindicatoria) had prescribed, the same having been filed only
SO ORDERED.
on October 24, 2001 beyond the statutory ten-year period therefor
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, •Trial court and CA later ruled in favor of Private Respondents. CA
and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur. stated that as to the issue of prescription, the appellate court held
that the prescriptive period should be reckoned from 1996, when
petitioner claimed ownership and barred respondents from fencing
the property.

CASE DIGEST: •Hence this petition.

Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Hon. Ponferrada, G.R. No. 168943, October 27,
2006. Issue:
Facts: •Whether or not respondent judge gravely erred and abused her
•Respondent filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and/or Accion discretion when she held that the action for quieting of title and/or
Reinvindicatoria before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City accion reinvindicatoria (civil case no. Q 01-45415) has not yet
against the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) prescribed

•Heirs of Santos alleged therein that, during his lifetime, Enrique

Santos was the owner of a 936-square-meter parcel of land located Petitioner’s argument:
in Tandang Sora, Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 57272.He had been in possession of the owner’s duplicate •That the action of respondents, whether it be one for quieting of
of said title and had been in continuous, open, adverse and title or an accion reinvindicatoria, had prescribed when the
peaceful possession of the property. He died on February 9, 1970 complaint was filed on October 24, 2001. Petitioner asserts that this is
and was survived by his wife, Alicia Santos, and other plaintiffs, who because when respondents filed their complaint, they were not in
were their children. Thereafter, plaintiffs took peaceful and adverse actual or physical possession of the property, as it (petitioner) has
possession of the property, and of the owner’s duplicate of said title. been in actual possession of the property since 1984when TCT No.
321744 was issued to it by the Register of Deeds
•Sometime in February 1996, heirs of santos learned that iglesia ni
cristo was claiming ownership over the property. They alleged that Ruling:
Enrique Santos, during his lifetime, and his heirs, after his death, never •As gleaned from the averments of the complaint, the action of
encumbered or disposed the property. In 1996, Santos had the respondents was one for quieting of title under Rule 64 of the Rules
property fenced but Iglesia ni Cristo deprived them of the final use
and enjoyment of their property. Thus, Santos filed for the quieting
of Court, in relation to Article 476 of the New Civil Code. The latter action had not even commenced to run, even if petitioner was able
provision reads: to secure TCT No.321744 over the property in 1984.

Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any •Thus, petition is denied. CAs decision is affirmed.
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 title to real
property or any interest therein.

•A cloud is said to be a semblance of a title, either legal or

equitable, or a cloud of an interest in land appearing in some legal
form but which is, in fact, unfounded, or which it would be
inequitable to enforce. An action for quieting of title is imprescriptible
until the claimant is ousted of his possession.

•Petitioner’s claim that it had been in actual or material possession

of the property since 1984 when TCT No. 321744 was issued in its favor
is belied by the allegations in the complaint that respondents had
been in actual and material possession of the property since 1961
up to thetime they filed their complaint on October 24, 2001.

•Admittedly, respondents interposed the alternative reinvindicatory

action against petitioner. It bears stressing that an accion
reinvindicatoria is a remedy seeking the recovery of ownership and
includes jus possidendi, jus utendi, and jus fruendi as well. It is an
action whereby a party claims ownership over a parcel of land and
seeks recovery of its full possession.

Thus, the owner of real property in actualand material possession

thereof may file an accion reinvindicatoria against another seeking
ownership over a parcel of land including jus vindicandi, or the right
to exclude defendants from the possession thereof.

•Since respondents were in actual or physical possession of the

property when they filed their complaint against petitioner on
October 24, 2001, the prescriptive period for the reinvindicatory