G.R. No.

204663 September 27, 2017

Municipal Rural Bank of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, petitioner, vs. Virginia Ordoñez, respondent

Peralta, J.

Respondent filed a complaint for Quieting of Title, a common law remedy for the removal of any
cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property, against petitioner bank.

FACTS:

Virginia Ordoñez alleged that she is the owner of a parcel of land in Fundado, Libamanan,
Camarines Sur, which she acquired through inheritance, and, along with her predecessors-in-interest, had
been in open, peaceful, uninterrupted possession since time immemorial.

On the other hand, petitioner bank contended that it is rather the true and absolute owner of the
subject land, and the property was previously owned by Roberto Hermita, who mortgaged the said land
to petitioner, but subsequently failed to satisfy his obligation causing petitioner to foreclose the mortgage,
and subsequently acquire the property and transfer title over it in its name.

ISSUE:

Is Municipal Rural Bank the absolute owner of the subject land?

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia Ordoñez is the absolute owner of the subject property.

Article 477 of the Civil Code provides that the plaintiff in action to quiet title must have legal or
equitable title to or interest in the real property, which is the subject matter of the action, but need not
be in possession of said property.

The act of respondent’s predecessors-in-interest designating Roman Zamudio as caretaker, as

early as 1975, is considered as evidence of respondent’s prior possession such that one need not have
actual or physical occupation of every area of the property at all times to be considered in possession,
whereas it was only in 1986 that petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest started occupying the same
property.

Moreover, settled is the rule that tax declaration of the disputed property and payment of realty
taxes thereon, which respondent’s predecessors-in-interest had been doing so as early as 1949, as
opposed to the declaration of Roberto’s father only in 1970, are good indication of possession in the
concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying for a property not in his actual or at least
constructive possession.

Petitioner even contended that Roberto acquired ownership of the subject property through
prescription, however it cannot be said that his possession was in good faith, considering that prior the
mortgaging, the mother of the respondent approached him and claimed ownership over the subject
property as well.

Therefore, Virginia Ordoñez was able to prove that she has legal or equitable title or interest in
the real property and the claim casting a cloud on her title is in fact invalid and inoperative.
DOCTRINE:

The plaintiff in action to quiet title must have legal or equitable title to or interest in the real
property, which is the subject matter of the action, but need not be in possession of said property.