JASPER JAY Q.

LIM PROPERTY LAW

Quieting of Title Cases

1. What is the cloud or alleged cloud in the title?

2. Was it considered by the Supreme Court as such?

SAPTO VS FABIANA,GR.NO.L-11285,MAY 16,1968

The sale (Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5701 (0-28) of the Register of
Deeds of Davao City) between Samuel and Constancio Sapto and defendant in 1931
was never registered, it was valid and binding upon the parties and the vendors
heirs, and ordered the plaintiffs to execute the necessary deed of conveyance in
defendant's favor and its annotation in the certificate of title.

The reconveyance is sought by way of performance of the contract of sale

entered into in 1931. No enforcement of the contract is in fact needed, since the
delivery of possession of the land sold had consummated the sale and transferred
title to the purchaser, registration of the contract not being indispensable as between
the parties. Actually the action for conveyance was one to quiet title, i.e., to remove
the cloud cast upon appellee's ownership by the refusal of the appellants to
recognize the sale made by their predecessors. This action accrued only when
appellant, initiated their suit to recover the land in 1954. Furthermore, it is an
established rule of American jurisprudence (made applicable in this jurisdiction by
Art. 480 of the New Civil Code) that actions to quiet title to property in the possession
of the plaintiff are imprescriptible

BUCTON VS GABAR,GR. NO. L-36359, JANUARY 31,1974

Josefina entered into a verbal agreement Nicanora Gabar Bucton however,

the land was not transferred to the name of Bucton. Bucton filed a specific
performance that be ordered to execute in favor of them a deed of sale of the
western half of a parcel of land in question. The land in question is admittedly
covered by a torrens title in the name of Josefina Llamoso Gabar.

The Supreme Court ruled that by the delivery of the possession of the land,
the sale was consummated and title was transferred to Bucton, that the action is
actually not for specific performance, since all it seeks is to quiet title, to remove the
cloud cast upon appellee's ownership as a result of appellant's refusal to recognize
the sale made by his predecessor, and that as plaintiff-appellee is in possession of
the land, the action is imprescriptible.
CORONEL VS IAC, GR.NO. 70191, OCTOBER 29, 1987

As lawful possessors and owners of the lot in question their cause of action
falls within the settled jurisprudence that an action to quiet title to property in one’s
possession is imprescriptible. Their undisturbed possession over a period of more
than 25 years gave them a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to
determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and the effect of his own
title.

The court find no reversible error on the part of the lower courts in recognizing
the ownership of the private respondents over 1/3 of Lot No. 1950-A of the Naic
Estate. The petitioner is bound to recognize the lien in favor of the private
respondents which was mistakenly excluded and therefore not inscribed in the
torrens title of the land of his predecessors-in-interest.

FERNANDEZ VS CA,GR.NO. 83141, SEPTEMBER 21,1990

The alleged cloud in the title in this case was petitioners' spouses Florentino
and Vivencia filed an action to quiet title and damages against Zenaida Fernandez
only, who was then already estranged from her husband Justiniano. That Zenaida
demanded the petitioners to vacate the premises of the lot awarded to her by the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court after the dissolution of their conjugal
partnership. The petitioner spouses contented that respondent court erred in not
declaring them as part owners of the subject property. There is sufficient evidence
on record to prove that petitioners and spouses Justiniano and Zenaida Fernandez
purchased in common the lot subject of this case and that it was the parties' intention
to become owners of specific portions thereof. An that the cause of action of
petitioners had already prescribed in view of the issuance in 1970 of a certificate of
title in the name of the Spouses Justiniano and Zenaida Fernandez.

The SC ruled that the petitioners are not barred by prescription in their action
to quite title. Prescription cannot be considered against petitioners who had been in
possession of subject premises from the time it was purchased from the de Torres
spouses in 1967 and continue to possess the same under claim of ownership. As
lawful possessor and owner of the disputed portion, her cause of action for
reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to property in one's possession is
imprescriptible.

MAMADSUAL VS MOSON, GR.NO. 92557, SEPTEMBER 27,1990

Plaintiffs contended that the title referred to by them in the complaint means
the legal title or ownership or dominion over the land in dispute acquired by them
from their ancestors by operation of the law on succession.The lower court ruled that
the Spouses Hadji have no legal or equitable title to the parcels of land in question, it
is obvious that there is no cloud to be removed or to be prevented from being cast
upon. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action had
prescribed.

The complaint shows that it is an action for quieting title. Therein, it is alleged
that petitioners are in "actual, continuous, and adverse possession" of the land in
question "since time immemorial" in the concept of owners. An action to quiet title is
imprescriptible if the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. It is also not
necessary that the person seeking to quiet his title is the registered owner of the
property in question.

PINGOL VS CA,GR.NO. 102909, SEPTEMBER 6, 1993

Pingol, the owner of a lot in Caloocan City, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale
of one-half of an undivided portion of parcel of land in favor of Donasco payable in 6
years.In 1984, Donasco died and was only able to pay P8,369 plus P2,000
downpayment, leaving a balance of P10,161. The heirs of Donasco remained in
possession of such lot and offered to settle the balance with Pingol. However, Pingol
refused to accept the offer and demanded a larger amount. Thus, the heirs of
Donasco filed an action for specific performance.

Although the complaint filed by the Donascos was an action for specific
performance, it was actually an action to quiet title. A cloud has been cast on the
title, since despite the fact that the title had been transferred to them by the
execution of the deed of sale and the delivery of the object of the contract, Pingol
adamantly refused to accept the payment by Donascos and insisted that they no
longer had the obligation to transfer the title. Donasco, who had made partial
payments and improvements upon the property, is entitled to bring suit to clear his
title against Pingol who refused to transfer title to him. It is not necessary that
Donasco should have an absolute title, an equitable title being sufficient to clothe
him with personality to bring an action to quiet title. Prescription cannot also be
invoked against the Donascos because an action to quiet title to property in one’s
possession is imprescriptible.

HEIRS OF OLVIGA VS CA, GR.NO. 104813, OCTOBER 21, 1993

The alleged cloud in this case is the claim of the heirs of Olviga over a parcel
of land which belonged to Eutiquio Pureza which ownership was then transferred to
Cornelio Glor. The ½ hectare portion of the said land being surveyed in favor of
Pureza was alleged to be the property of Olviga. Thus, Jose Olviga obtained a
registered title for said lot in a cadastral proceeding.

The Supreme Court held that Cornelio Glor and their predecessors-in-interest
were in actual possession of the property since 1950. Their undisturbed possession
gave them the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the
nature of the adverse claim of petitioners, who in 1988 disturbed their possession.
SECUYA VS VDA. DE SELMA

A lot was sold to Gerarda M. Vda. De Selma by Cesaria Caballero under a

notarized deed of sale. Included in the sale was the land under dispute. The
petitioners alleged that they were the owner of the lot sold by Damacio Secuya, who
bought the lot from Paciencia Sabellona, who possessed the property by way of
Agreement of Partition executed by her and Maxima vda de Carino. The sale of
Secuya to the petitioner was made in a private document. Such was lost, and sale
was testified buy the sole heir Damacio Secuya.The petitioner asked the Court for
the remedy of quieting of title in dispute.
The petitioners do not have the requisite to avail the remedy of quieting of
title. Article 476 of the Civil Code, which reads:
"Whenever there is cloud on title to real property or any 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 title.

METROBANK VS ALEJO, GR. NO. 141970, SEPTEMBER 10,2001

Raul and Cristina Acampado defaulted in the payment of their loan and
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated. The bank submitted the highest
and winning bid. A certificate of sale was issued in their favor. When they were about
to get their TCT from the Register of Deeds, petitioner was informed of the existence
of the decision in the aforementioned civil case (complaint for declaration of nullity of
TCT) declaring the Spouses Acampados’s TCT null and void.

An action for quieting of title is filed only when there is a cloud on title to real
property or any interest therein. As defined, a "cloud on title is a semblance of title
which appears in some legal form but which is in fact unfounded." In this case, the
subject judgment cannot be considered as a cloud on petitioner’s title or interest over
the real property covered by TCT No. V-41319, which does not even have a
semblance of being a title

PORTIC VS CRISTOBAL, GR.NO. 156171, APRIL 22,2005

In 1968, spouses Ricardo and Ferma Portic acquired a parcel of land with a 3
door apartment from spouses Alcantara even though they’re aware that the land was
mortgaged to the SSS. Portic defaulted in paying SSS. The Portics then executed a
contract with Anastacia Cristobal and the latter agreed to buy the said property for
P200k. Cristobal’s down payment was P45k and she also agreed to pay
SSS.Thereafter, a transfer Certificate of Title was executed in favor of Cristobal.
However, on May 20, 1996, petitioners demanded from respondent the alleged
unpaid balance of P55, 000.00, but the latter refused to pay. This prompted the
petitioners to file this instant civil case against respondent to remove the cloud on the
title.
 Generally, the registered owner of a property is the proper party to bring an
action to quiet title. However, it has been held that this remedy may also be availed
of by a person other than the registered owner because, in [Article 476 of the Civil
Code], ‘title’ does not necessarily refer to the original or transfer certificate of title.
Thus, lack of an actual certificate of title to a property does not necessarily bar an
action to quiet title.”

CALACALA VS RP, GR.NO. 154415, JULY 28,2005

Petitioners base their claim of legal title not on the strength of any
independent writing in their favor but simply and solely on respondent Republic’s
failure to secure the Certificate of Final Sale, execute an Affidavit of Consolidation of
Ownership and obtain a writ of possession over the property in dispute within ten
(10) years from the registration of the Certificate of Sale. Petitioners’ reliance on the
foregoing shortcomings or inactions of respondent Republic cannot stand.

With the reality that petitioners are not holders of any legal title over the
property subject of this case and are bereft of any equitable claim thereon, the very
first requisite of an action to quiet title,i.e. that the plaintiff or complainant has a legal
or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject matter of the action, is
miserably wanting in this case. It can thus be seen that for an action for quieting of
title to prosper, the plaintiff must first have a legal, or, at least, an equitable title on
the real property subject of the action and that the alleged cloud on his title must be
shown to be in fact invalid. It is essential for the plaintiff or complainant to have a
legal title or an equitable title to or interest in the real property which is the subject
matter of the action. Also, the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that is being
alleged as a cloud on plaintiff’s title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
BANK OF COMMERCE VS SAN PABLO, GR.NO. 167848,APRIL 27,2007

The cloud in the case of Bank of Commerce v. San Pablo is the mortgage of
the subject property to the Bank of Commerce, annotated on the Spouses San
Pablo’s TCT, constitutes a cloud on their title to the subject property, which may, at
first, appear valid and effective, but is allegedly invalid or voidable for having been
made without their knowledge and authority as registered owners. We thus have
established that the case filed by the spouses San Pablo before the MTC is actually
an action for quieting of title, a real action, the jurisdiction over which is determined
by the assessed value of the property.

An action for quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any
cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. Stating the
case of Baricuatro, Jr. v. CA “Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to
secure " an adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to
that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under
him may be forever afterward free from any danger or hostile claim. In an action for
quieting of title, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of
the complainant and other claimants” not only to place things in their proper place, to
make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other,
but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of
doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce
the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he
deems best. Such remedy may be availed of under the circumstances enumerated in
the Civil Code: "ART. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any
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.

CLADO-REYES VS SPOUSES LIMPE, GR.NO. 163876,JULY 9,2008

Reyes had no title upon which respondents’ title could cast a cloud, as they
were the ones casting doubt on respondents’ title.15 It held that the documents
allegedly executed by Simeon I. Garcia showed no indicia that Garcia was not the
real owner of the lot; thus, he could not make an effective conveyance thereof.
Consequently, it upheld respondents’ title over the disputed lot.

An action for quieting of title originated in equity jurisprudence to secure an

adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the
complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be
forever free from any danger of hostile claim. Thus, our courts are tasked to
determine the respective rights of the contending parties, not only to put things in
their proper places, but also to benefit both parties, so that he who has the right
would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could
afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use and even
to abuse the property as he may deem best.

PHILIVILLE VS BONIFACIO, GR. NO. 167391, JUNE 8,2011

The PhilVille acquired the lots by purchase from N. Dela Merced and Sons,
Inc. on July 24, 1984. Earlier, on September 27, 1961, a group composed of
Eleuteria Rivera et. al claiming to be the heirs of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, a co-
owner to the extent covered by OCT Nos. 982, 983, 984, 985 and 994 of the
Hacienda Maysilo, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal in
Land Registration Case No. 4557. They prayed for the substitution of their names on
OCT No. 994 in place of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal. Afterwards, the alleged heirs
of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal filed a petition for the partition of the properties
covered by OCT Nos. 982, 983, 984, 985 and 994. Thirty-one (31) years later, on
May 22, 1996, Eleuteria Rivera filed a Supplemental Motion, for the partition and
segregation of portions of the properties covered by OCT.

The Supreme Court said that the action for quieting of title is not proper.
Because Phillvilled filed a complaint for quieting of title after it was served a notice to
vacate but before it could be dispossessed of the subject properties. Thus, while
petitioner was not able to demonstrate that respondents' TCT No. C-314537 in the
name of Eleuteria Rivera constitutes a cloud over its title, it has nevertheless
successfully established its ownership over the subject properties and the validity of
its titles which entitles it to declaratory relief.

HEIRS OF CASTILLEJOS VS LA TONDEÑA

La Tondeña averred that it is the absolute owner of two parcels of land

located in La Union, covered by Tax Declaration, that Liberato, through stealth,
misrepresentation and deliberate fraud, maliciously executed an affidavit of
ownership over the subject properties and that by itself and through its
predecessors-in-interest, it has been in continuous, open, public and adverse
possession of the subject real properties through time immemorial. Liberato claimed
that his land and the subject properties claimed by the respondent are different from
one another because they have different boundaries, that his land was tilled by his
father-in-law and that he planted the land with different crops and trees and built a
house thereon where he and his family have continuously resided.

The action to quiet the title will not prosper because two requisites must
concur, viz: (1) the plaintiff or complainant must have a legal or an equitable title to
or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action; and (2) the
deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that is being alleged as a cloud on
plaintiff's title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
In this case, there was no clear and concrete evidence is extant from the
records that the properties covered by Liberato's TD are the same parcels of land
described in the respondent. The respondent also failed to illustrate, prove or even
allege which portion of the land covered by its TD was allegedly encroached upon by
Liberato's TD. It did not submit a technical description or survey report to identify the
exact locations of the property it claims and the one claimed by Liberato.