PINGOL vs.

COURT OF APPEALS

Facts: Vicente Pingol, owner of Lot No. 3223 in Caloocan City, executed a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE of one
half of the undivided portion of his lot to 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 the 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 (with Prayer for Writ of Prelim. Injunction, because Pingol
were encroaching upon Donasco’s lot). Pingol averred that the sale and transfer of title was conditional
upon the full payment of Donasco (contract to sell, not contract of sale). With Donasco’s breach of the
contract in 1976 and death in 1984, the sale was deemed cancelled, and the heirs’ continuous occupancy
was only being tolerated by Pingol.

RTC- dismissied the complaint and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants P350.00 as reasonable
monthly rental for the use of the premises

Court of Appeals - REVERSED and SET ASIDE

The Court of Appeals ruled that the deed of sale in question reveals the clear intention of Vicente Pingol
to part with the ownership of the one-half portion of the land by way of an absolute sale; that the failure
to fully pay the agreed price was not a ground for the cancellation of the sale; and that the plaintiffs'
action is imprescriptible since it is akin to an action to quiet title to proper

Issue: Whether or not Donasco has the right to quiet title

Held: The complaint filed by the Donascos was actually an action to quiet title and not an action for specific
performance. 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 refused
to receive the tender of payment being made by them.

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.

A vendee in an oral contract to convey land who had made part payment thereof, entered upon the land
and had made valuable improvements thereon, is entitled to bring suit to clear his title against the vendor
who had refused to transfer the title to him. It is not necessary that the vendee has an absolute title, an
equitable title being sufficient to clothe him with personality to bring an action to quiet title.