Quieting Property
Quieting Property
Quieting Property
Quieting of Title
Case Details Facts Issue/Held/Doctrine
Uberas vs Court of Appeals Upon the death of the Spouses Juan Uberas and Dominga Issue: Whether or not the action for quieting of title had prescribed.
G.R. No. 48268; October 30, 1978 Mendoza, his heir, Pedro Uberas, by means of fraud and deceit,
persuaded his sister Alejandra, Uberas, to sign a declaration of No.
Respondent court manifestly failed to take into account the
Petitioner: Heirs of Segundo Uberas and Heirs heirship, stating falsely that they were the only heirs of the
averments of petitioners’ complaint that they “and defendants are
of Albino Uberas deceased, adjudicating to themselves the whole property in co-owners and possessors of the property” and that “the malicious
Respondent: Court of First Instance of Negros question. and illegal acts committed by defendants were known to the
Occidental, Alejandra Uberas, Soledad Uberas, Pedro later caused her sister to sign a deed of absolute sale of her plaintiffs only during this year 1977, after Soledad Rapiz and her
Milagros Uberas, Rolando Uberas, Wilfredo undivided (1/2) portion of the lot in favor of Pedro, and induced children were already claiming full ownership and possession of the
Uberas, Selma Uberas, Pedro Uberas Jr. her to sign a general power of attorney in favor of Pedro’s son, whole of the property,” as set forth specifically in paragraph 20 of
Ponente: Teehankee, J. for the latter to sell or encumber the property. their complaint below.
The petitioners filed an action for quieting of title against the Respondent court could not peremptorily disregard this averment
respondents. without trial and receiving the parties’ proofs.
It is obvious that if such averment be duly established at the trial by
The CFI of Negros Occidental dismissed the complaint on the
petitioners-plaintiffs, the period for prescription, even under
ground of prescription. respondent court’s theory of the case in its order, would only have
On appeal, the CA affirmed the lower Court’s decision. commenced in 1977 and prescription could not lie.
Hence, the petition.
Sapto vs Fabiano Samuel and Constancio Sapto executed a deed of sale of a portion Issue: Whether or not the action for quieting of title had prescribed.
GR No. 11285; May 16, 1958 of four hectares of the land aforementioned in favor of defendant
Apolonio Fabiano. No.
Actually the action for conveyance was one to quiet title, i.e., to
Plaintiff-Appellants: Vicente Sapto, Laureana The sale was never registered, but possession of the land was
remove the cloud cast upon appellee's ownership by the refusal of
Sapto conveyed and transferred to Fabiano. the appellants to recognize the sale made by their predecessors.
Defendant-Appellee: Apolonio Fabiana The widow of Samuel Sapto sought for the recovery of the parcel This action accrued only when appellants initiated their suit to
Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L, J. of land in the CFI of Davao. recover the land in 1954.
RTC ruled that the sale was binding although not registered and Furthermore, it is an established rule of American jurisprudence
ordered plaintiffs to execute a deed of conveyance. (made applicable in this jurisdiction by Art. 480 of the New Civil
On appeal, the appellants contend that the action to obtain it had Code) that actions to quiet title to property in the possession of the
long prescribed, twenty years have elapsed since the original plaintiff are imprescriptible (44 Am. Jur. p. 47; Cooper vs. Rhea, 39
sale. L. R. A. 930; Inland Empire Land Co. vs. Grant County, 138 Wash.
439, 245 Pac. 14).
Spouses Benito vs. Ruiz Spouses Benito sold to Agapita Ruiz a parcel of land. Issue: Whether or not the action has prescribed.
GR 149906; December 26, 2002 However, they failed to deliver or cause the issuance of a
Certificate of Title. No.
Finally, we note that respondent is in possession of the disputed
Petitioner: Spouses Horacio and Felisa The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground of
property.17
prescription, contending that action to invalidate title certificates
Benito If a person claiming to be the owner of a wrongfully registered parcel
on the ground of fraud prescribes upon the expiration of one year of land is in actual possession, the right to seek reconveyance does
Respondent: Agapita Saquitan-Ruiz from the entry of the decree of registration. not prescribe.18
Ponente: Panganiban, J. Upon appeal, reversing the RTC, the CA held that respondent’s A petition for the quieting of title, although essentially an action for
second cause of action was for reconveyance, not for the reconveyance, should not be dismissed on the ground of
invalidation of certificates of title. prescription, if it is alleged that the plaintiff is in possession of the
As long as the property was still in the name of the person who property.
had caused the wrongful registration, and as long as it had not
yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value, an action for
reconveyance was still available.
G.R. No. 141970. September 10, Quick Summary: Spouses Raul and Cristina Same; Actions; An action for quieting of title is filed
2001.* Acompanado executed a real estate mortgage in favor of only when there is a cloud on title to real property
petitioner which was foreclosed upon failure by the or any interest therein.—
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST former to pay its obligations. However, in a previous case Equally important, an action for quieting of title is
filed by the respondent, without the petitioner as a party, filed only when there is a cloud on title to real
COMPANY, petitioner, vs.
the RTC ruled that the subject land's title was null and
Hon. FLORO T. ALEJO, in His property or any interest therein. As defined, a
void. Petitioner filed for annulment of decision of the
Capacity as Presiding Judge of “cloud on title is a semblance of title which
RTC. CA dismissed on the ground that the proper remedy
Branch 172 of the Regional Trial is quieting of title, and not annulment of decision. SC appears in some legal form but which is in fact
Court of Valenzuela; and SY TAN reversed ruling that it is not quieting of title. unfounded.” In this case, the subject judgment
SE, represented by his Attorney-in- cannot be considered as a cloud on petitioner’s
Fact, SIAN SUAT NGO, title or interest over the real property covered by
respondents. TCT No. V-41319, which does not even have a
semblance of being a title.
G.R. No. 123509. March 14, 2000.* Quick Summary: The predecessors-in-interest of the Based on the above definition, an action to quiet
plaintiff were the owners of the land in question. Upon title is a common-law remedy for the removal of
LUCIO ROBLES, EMETERIA his death, the cultivation was assigned to Lucio Robles, any cloud or doubt or uncertainty on the title to real
ROBLES, ALUDIA ROBLES and and payment of taxes was to Hilario Robles. However, in property. It is essential for the plaintiff or
the course of time, the property ended up to the Spouses
EMILIO ROBLES, petitioners, vs. complainant to have a legal or an equitable title to
Santos due to the property being foreclosed in a
COURT OF APPEALS, Spouses or interest in the real property which is the subject
mortgage. A Free Patent was issued to the Spouses
VIRGILIO SANTOS and BABY Santos. Petitioners sought recovery of possession and matter of the action. Also, the deed, claim,
RUTH CRUZ, RURAL BANK OF declaration for nullity on a Free Patent issued to Spouses encumbrance or proceeding that is being alleged
CARDONA, Inc., HILARIO Santos. RTC affirmed the prayer. CA, reversed the as a cloud on plaintiff’s title must be shown to be
ROBLES, ALBERTO PALAD, JR. in decision on the ground that the plaintiffs do not have any in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
his capacity as Director of Lands, and right on the title. SC reversed CA, on the ground that the appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
JOSE MAULEON in his capacity as co-ownership was not repudiated, hence, plaintiffs still
District Land Officer of the Bureau of has right on the title. Action for quieting of title was Therefore, there is merit to the contention of the
Lands, respondents. granted. petitioners that Hilario mortgaged the disputed
property to the Rural Bank of Cardona in his
capacity as a mere co-owner thereof. Clearly, the
said transaction did not divest them of title to the
property at the time of the institution of the
Complaint for quieting of title.
G.R. No. 148943. August 15, 2002.* Quick Summary: Maria Omipet and Antonio Gapacan Article 476 of the Civil Code provides that an action
are the children of Paicat Gapacan who possessed an to quiet title may be brought when there exists a
AGNES GAPACAN, EUGENIA unregistered land. Antonio left to work in the mines, and cloud on the title to real property or any interest
GAPACAN-KIAKI and MARILYN Maria was left behind to take care of his father and took therein. In the early case of Bautista v. Exconde,
the cultivation of the property. When Antonio returned,
GAPACAN, petitioners, vs. we held that a property owner whose property
he executed an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property, and
MARIA GAPACAN OMIPET, rights were being disturbed may ask a competent
subsequently paid for the Tax Declaration in his name.
respondent. Maria filed a complaint for Quieting of Title. RTC court for a proper determination of the respective
dismissed the complaint and adjudged the petitioners as rights of the party-claimants, not only to place
the rightful owners of the lot. CA assailed the decision of things in their proper place, that is, to require the
RTC contending that the property is equally owned by one who has no right to refrain from acts injurious
the siblings. SC affirmed the appellate court's decision. to the peaceful enjoyment of the property not only
of the rightful owner but also for the benefit of both
with the view of dissipating any cloud of doubt over
the property.
G.R. No. 117389. May 11, 1995.* Quick Summary: The subject land were registered in Similarly, the fact that petitioners instituted a
the name of Ramon, Pura, and Wilfredo and Mariabelle separate action for quieting of title is not a valid
ROMEO V. OBLEA and RAMON S. M. Wico. Juan Esteban subsequently bought the land reason for defeating the execution of the summary
MELENCIO, petitioners, vs. from the administratrix of the land, and who remedy of ejectment. On the contrary, it bolsters
subsequently leased it to Romeo Oblea. Esteban filed a
COURT OF APPEALS and JUAN S. the conclusion that the eviction case did not deal
case for ejectment against Oblea. MTC ruled in favor of
ESTEBAN, respondents. with the issue of ownership which was precisely the
Esteban, which was affirmed by the RTC. Subsequently,
the lot was sold to Oblea. An action for quieting of title subject matter of the action for quieting of title
was filed by Oblea against Esteban. Later, the ejectment before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City.
case was appealed to the CA which was dismissed. With the finality of the decision in the ejectment
Hence, MTC demanded the execution of the ejectment. case, execution in favor of the prevailing party has
The ejectment was contested in the RTC, which the become a matter of right; its implementation
Executive Judge gave its order to stop the execution on mandatory. It cannot be avoided.
the ground that an action for quieting of title is pending.
But on appeal, the order of the Executive Judge was
reversed, on the ground that the ejectment case had
long been executory and final. SC affirmed the decision
of the CA, ruling that an action for quieting of title is not
a valid reason to halt the execution of an ejectment.
G.R. No. 95748. November 21, Quick Summary: Upon the death of their father, In fine, to avail of the remedy of quieting of title, a
1996.* the property in question was shared among the plaintiff must show that there is an instrument,
siblings of the petitioner. Respondent built a bamboo record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which
ANASTACIA VDA. DE AVILES, ET fence and moved the earthen dikes placed on the constitutes or casts a cloud, doubt, question or
AL., petitioners, vs. share of Eduardo Aviles. A portion of petitioner's shadow upon the owner’s title to or interest in real
COURT OF APPEALS and CAMILO land was therefore encroached. The petitioners filed property. Thus, petitioners have wholly
AVILES, respondents. a case for quieting of title. Trial Court dismissed the misapprehended the import of the foregoing rule
case on the ground that the special civil action for by claiming that respondent Court erred in holding
quieting of title is not the proper remedy, but rather that there was “no x x x evidence of any muniment
an ejectment suit. CA and SC affirmed the lower of title, proceeding, written contract, x x x,” and
court's decision. that there were, as a matter of fact, two such
contracts, viz., (i) the Agreement of Partition
executed by private respondent and his brothers
(including the petitioners’ father and predecessor-
in-interest), in which their respective shares in the
inherited property were agreed upon, and (ii) the
Deed of Sale evidencing the redemption by
petitioner Anastacia Vda. de Aviles of the subject
property in a foreclosure sale. However, these
documents in no way constitute a cloud or cast a
doubt upon the title of petitioners. Rather, the
uncertainty arises from the parties’ failure to
situate and fix the boundary between their
respective properties.
No. L-20954. May 24, 1967. Quick Summary: Teodoro Hussain sold a parcel of An action to quiet title, brought by a person who is
land to Chichirita on a condition that the former has in possession of the property, is imprescriptible.
ELIAS GALLAR, plaintiff-appellee, a right to redeem the same within 6 years. Days However, if the plaintiff is not in possession, the
vs. after the sale, Chichirita sold the property to action would prescribe within the proper
HERMENEGILDA HUSAIN, ET AL., Graciana Hussain, as if Graciana was acting to prescriptive period.
defendants. BONIFACIO HUSAIN, redeem the property, who in turn sold to Elias
defendant-appellant. Gallar. Gallar filed an action in the CFI to compel the
heirs of Teodoro to execute a deed of conveyance,
which was granted by the Court. The Hussains filed
an appeal to the Court on the ground that the action
for quieting of title had prescribed. SC affirmed the
decision of the CFI, since Gallar was in possession of
the property, hence the action is imprescriptible.
G. R. No. 102909. September 6, Quick Summary: Vicente Pingol executed a sale in Although the private respondents’ complaint before
1993.* favor of Francisco Donasco to 1/2 portion of an the trial court was denominated as one for specific
undivided parcel of land. Donasco immediately took performance, it is in effect an action to quiet title.
SPOUSES VICENTE and LOURDES possession of the property, but failed to pay the
PINGOL, petitioners, vs. installments on 1972. Upon Donasco's death in A vendee in an oral contract to convey land who
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and 1984, his heirs filed an action for specific had made part payment thereof, entered upon the
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO N. performance in the RTC against Pingol to compel the land and had made valuable improvements
DONASCO, namely: MELINDA D. latter to accept the payment for the unpaid balance thereon, is entitled to bring suit to clear his title
PELAYO, MARIETTA D. SINGSON, of the sale, and for the court to issue a writ of against the vendor who had refused to transfer the
MYRNA D. CUEVAS, NATIVIDAD D. preliminary injunction to prevent Pingol from title to him. It is not necessary that the vendee has
PELAYO, YOLANDA D. CACERES and encroaching the property. RTC ruled in favor of an absolute title, an equitable title being sufficient
MARY DONASCO, respondents. Pingol, on the ground that the title did not pass to to clothe him with personality to bring an action to
Donasco because the sale was not consummated, quiet title.
and that the action was barred because of
prescription. The CA reversed the decision, ordering
Pingol to accept the payment but with legal interest
thereon, and that the action, which is deemed as an
action to quiet title, did not prescribed since the
property is in possession of Donasco. SC affirmed
the CA's decision modifying the legal interest to be
paid.
G.R. No. 111141. March 6, 1998.* Quick Summary: Petitioner alleges that he is the At the outset, we hold that the instant petition must
owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area be denied for the reason that the lower court
MARIO Z. TITONG, petitioner, vs. of 3.28 has. He contends that on three separate should have outrightly dismissed the complaint for
THE HONORABLE COURT OF occasions, the respondent forcibly entered the place quieting of title. The remedy of quieting of title may
APPEALS (4th Division), with the latter's laborer to plow on the area, be availed of under the circumstances enumerated
VICTORICO LAURIO and claiming ownership over the same. Respondent in the Civil Code: “ART. 476. Whenever there is a
ANGELES LAURIO, respondents. contended that the property in dispute form part of cloud on title to real property or any interest
an agricultural land with an area of 5.5 has, which therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
they purchased from their predecessors-in-interest, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently
Pablo Espinosa. Petitioner filed an action in the RTC valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid,
for quieting of title against the respondent which the ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
Court ruled in favor of the respondents. On appeal, prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought
the CA affirmed the lower Court's decision. SC to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action
affirmed CA's decision, on the ground that the may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being
petitioner failed to prove that there is a cloud on the cast upon title to real property or any interest
title due to an instrument, claim, record, therein.” Under this provision, a claimant must
encumbrance or proceeding. The proper action show that there is an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which constitutes or
should be for forcible entry, and not for quieting of casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon the
title. owner’s title to or interest in real property. The
ground or reason for filing a complaint for quieting
of title must therefore be “an instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding.” Under the
maxim expresio unius est exclusio alterius, these
grounds are exclusive so that other reasons outside
of the purview of these reasons may not be
considered valid for the same action.
G.R. No. 144208. September 11, Quick Summary: Petitioners trace their rights from As a general rule, a cloud which may be removed
2007.* Casimiro Policarpio. Upon their judicial registration of by suit to quiet title is not created by mere verbal
the property, they found out that the property had or parol assertion of ownership of or an interest in
EFREN TANDOG, FELIX TANDOG, been occupied by the respondents. Petitioners filed property. This rule is subject to qualification, where
FELIPE TANDOG, JOSEFINO an action to quiet title on the ground that there is a written or factual basis for the asserted
TANDOG, HELEN TANDOG, respondents obtained title over the lot through right. Thus, a claim of right based on acquisitive
CATALINA TANDOG, ROMEO fraud. Respondents answered that they were in prescription or adverse possession has been held
TANDOG, DOMINGO TANDOG, open and continuous possession of the land since to constitute a removable cloud on title.
CATALINA SANTOS, MARIA time immemorial. RTC dismissed the complaint. CA
BAUTISTA CATANYAG, ARTEMIO affirmed the RTCs decision on the ground that
CATANYAG, ANGELES petitioner failed to show that a cloud casts over their
CATANYAG, APOLONIA title based on an instrument, claim, encumbrance,
CATANYAG, ADORACION record or title. SC affirmed the lower court's decision
CATANYAG, ARCELY CATANYAG, on the ground that petitioner failed to prove that
and AMPARO CATANYAG, all respondent's adverse possession casts a cloud on
represented by EFREN TANDOG, their title over the lot.
petitioners, vs.
RENATO MACAPAGAL, SPOUSES
ALFONSO and MARINA
CALDERON, and the LANDS
MANAGEMENT BUREAU,
respondents.
G.R. No. 178606. December 15, Quick Summary: EDNP constructed a church Respondent District Engineer invokes the decision
2009.* building for its congregation on the lot in question. of the RTC in Civil Case 787 that the people of
However, MPED-DPWH started building the Barangay Poblacion owned the lot in question. But
THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF foundations for the gymnasium. EDNP filed a the case was for quieting of title that petitioner
NORTHERN PHILIPPINES, rep. by complaint for forcible entry with a prayer for TRO in EDNP filed in court. The RTC dismissed the action
VICTOR D. ANANAYO, Convention the MCTC. The MCTC ruled in favor of EDNP. RTC based on EDNP’s failure to implead the people of
Secretary, petitioner, vs. affirmed the decision of the MCTC. Upon appeal in Barangay Poblacion as indispensable parties whom
THE DISTRICT ENGINEER, the CA, the appellate court reversed the lower the court believed had a valid claim to the property
MOUNTAIN PROVINCE courts' decision on the ground that the plaintiff failed in dispute. Not being a party to that action, the
ENGINEERING DISTRICT, to implead the people of Barangay Poblacion as people of Barangay Poblacion cannot claim that
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC indispensable parties of the case. RTC reversed the they should be deemed to have obtained a
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS [MPED- decision of the CA, and affirmed the decision of the judgment of ownership of the land in their favor.
DPWH], respondent. MCTC and RTC.
G.R. No. 159788. December 23, Quick Summary: Petitioners filed an action for Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree
2009.* quieting of title on the ground that the title in provides that a certificate of title cannot be subject
question had been declared null and void in a Partial to collateral attack and can only be altered,
SOTERO ROY LEONERO, Decision, however, the respondents were not parties modified or cancelled in a direct proceeding in
RODOLFO LIM, ISIDORO A. to the said Partial Decision. RTC dismissed the accordance with law. In Foster-Gallego v. Galang,
PADILLA, JR., AMY ROSE FISMA, principal action for quieting of title. The CA affirmed 435 SCRA 275 (2004), the Court held that the issue
and NORMA CABUYO, petitioners, the lower court's decision on the ground that the of whether a title was procured by falsification or
vs. Partial Decision has no legal effect to the respondent fraud should be raised in an action expressly
SPOUSES MARCELINO B. BARBA since they were not parties to that case. SC affirmed instituted for the purpose, not in an action for
and FORTUNA MARCOS-BARBA, the CA's decision. quieting of title. Again, in Vda. de Gualberto v. Go,
represented by IMELDA N. 463 SCRA 671 (2005), the Court held that the
FORONDO, and REGISTER OF validity of a certificate of title cannot be assailed in
DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, an action for quieting of title; an action for
respondents. annulment of title is the more appropriate remedy
to seek the cancellation of a certificate of title.
Hence, herein petitioners’ action for quieting of title
is a mere collateral attack against respondents’ TCT
Nos. 59721, 59725, 59726 and 59727, and is
proscribed by the law.