PROPERTY Pineda Notes

Assignment No. 3 – Quieting of Title

QUIETING OF TITLE
 Remedy or form of proceeding originating in equity
jurisprudence, which has for its purpose 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 of the hostile claim.
7. Tax sale or a tax deed which is invalid by reason of the
prior payment of the taxes in question
8. Contract of sale which has been rescinded or forfeited as a
result of the purchaser’s abandonment of the contract or
by his default in performance
9. Conveyance by one who after the execution of the deed
was declared insane, there having been no lucid interval
from a date anterior to the conveyance

Purpose:  General Rule

 To prevent litigation A cloud which may be removed by suit to quiet title is not
 To protect the true title and possession created by mere verbal or parol assertion of ownership of or an
 Real interest and that of right and justice interest in property.

Action to quiet title vs. action to remove cloud  Acts of strangers

Action to quiet title
An action for the purpose of
putting an end to vexatious
litigation in respect to the
property involved
The plaintiff asserts his own
estate and declares generally
that defendant claims some
estate in the land, without
defining it, and avers that the
claim is without foundation,
and calls on the defendant to
set forth the nature of his
claim, so that it may be
determined by decree
action to remove cloud
Intended to procure the
cancellation, delivery of,
release of an instrument,
emcumbrance, or claim
constituting a claim on
plaintiff’s title, and which may
be used to injure or vex him in
the enjoyment of his title
The plaintiff not only declares
his own title, but also avers the
source and nature of
defendant’s claim, points out
its defect and prays that it be
declared void.
An action may prosper where the deed is forged by someone
impersonating the owner
If land is sold by an entire stranger, when he has no shadow of
a title, and another is in possession, no cloud is thereby
created.
 Rights of a Property Owner to ask from competent courts:
1. Their rights to be determined
2. To make the one who has no rights respect and not disturb
the other
3. For the benefit of both
4. The one who has the right would see every cloud of doubt
5. He could afterwards introduce improvements without fear
 If the sheriff threatens to attach property which is exempted
from attachment, an action to prevent a cloud on title will
prosper
 Prescription:

Article 476. Cloud on title
 Cloud on title – outstanding instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is actually invalid or
inoperative, but which may nevertheless impair or affect
injuriously the title to property.
 Where the instrument is invalid or inefficacious on its face, or
where it can be shown to be invalid or inefficacious without the
need of presenting extrinsic evidence, an action to remove
cloud on title does not exist.
1. If the plaintiff is in possession of the property, the action
DOES NOT PRESCRIBE
2. If the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, the
action may prescribe. Moreover, even if the action is
brought within the period of limitations, it may be barred
by LACHES, where there is no excuse offered for the failure
to assert the title sooner.
Article 477. Title and possession of plaintiff
 General Rule

 Illustrations of Cloud In order to maintain an action to quiet title or remove a cloud

thereon, the plaintiff must have a legal title to the property in
1. A title or lien which appears to have been procured by question or some interest therein, and be in possession thereof
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentations at the institution of the action
2. Forged instrument
3. Unauthorized or prohibited conveyances or encumbrances  In possession vs. not in possession
by incapacitated persons
4. Taxes levied on exempt property, and apparently valid tax In possession Out of possession
sales and conveyances of such property
5. Conveyance which is executed by one whose title to the Period does not prescribe Period prescribes
property had been divested Only right is to remove or Aside from being given the
6. Grant which is shown to have been subject to a condition prevent cloud right to remove or prevent
precedent, where it appears that the condition has not cloud, he may also bring the
been performed ordinary actions of ejectment,
publiciana or reinvindicatoria

1
PROPERTY
within the proper prescriptive
periods
Article 478. Extinguishment of Right
 Functus oficio – branch of the doctrine res judicata; prevents
the re-opening of a matter before the same court, tribunal or
other statutory actor which rendered the final decision in the
absence of statutory authority
 Instances where the action may be used
1. When the contract, etc., has ended
2. When the action is barred by extinctive prescription
Article 479. Restoration of benefit
 General Rule
Whenever the plaintiff is shown to be legally or morally bound
to restore or reimburse, he must do so.
Article 480. General law
 In case of conflict between the Civil Code and the Principles of
the General Law on the subject, the former shall prevail
 Principles of general law – general principles developed on the
subject in Anglo-American jurisprudence, where this remedy is
well-known
 Examples of principles:
1. Regarding defenses: the defendant can win if he can prove:
a. That the plaintiff does not have legal or equitable title
[Art. 477 requires so]
b. That the defendant has acquired the ownership by
adverse possession
c. Res judicata
d. That the defendant became the owner after the action
had been filed, but before he filed his answer
e. That the action has prescribed, the plaintiff being
outside of possession
2. Regarding reliefs given:
a. Unauthorized mortgages may be cancelled
b. In an ordinary case, the defendant may in his counter-
claim ask for quieting of title as against the plaintiff
c. Injunction may be availed of such as a prohibition to
destroy certain properties or to gather fruits from the
land in question
Article 481. Rules of procedure
 Some rules of procedure:
1. The venue of the action is determined by the situation or
location of the premises, and not by the residence of the
party
2. The process or notice should accurately describe the
property and state in general terms the nature and extent
of the plaintiff’s claim
3. The suit cannot be brought in the name of one party for
the use and benefit of another
Pineda Notes
Assignment No. 3 – Quieting of Title
4. In a suit for the quieting of title, the actual possessor at the
time of the filing of the action must be respected in his
possession until after there is an adjudication on the
merits.
 When the action to quiet title will not prosper
1. If it is merely an action to settle a dispute concerning
boundaries
2. If the case merely involves the proper interpretation and
meaning of a contract or document
3. If the plaintiff has no title, either legal or equitable
4. If the action has prescribed and the plaintiff is not in
possession of the property
5. If the instrument is void on its face
6. If it is a mere claim or assertion unless such claim has
been made in a court action or the claim asserts that an
instrument or entry in behalf of the plaintiff is not really
what it appears to be
CASES
Heirs of Jose Olviga vs. CA
GR No. 104813, October 21, 1993
Facts:
In 1950, the land in question is still a forest land when one Pureza
and his father cultivated the same. When the area was released
for disposition, the Bureau of Lands surveyed the land in the
name of Pureza and known to be Lot 13, Pls-84. Godofredo
Olviga, protested the survey but only with respect to the half
hectare portion of the land.
In 1960, Pureza filed a homestead application over Lot 13.
Without this having acted upon, he transferred his rights over
said lot to Cornelio Glor in 1961.
In 1967, Jose Olviga obtained a registered title over the land in
cadastral proceeding. Both lots 12 and 13 were declared as
uncontested in the name of Olviga and were registered in his
name. the OCT was split into two. Olviga later transferred Lot 13
to Lolita Olviga and her husband, the same lot that was in
possession of private respondents herein.
Private respondents filed an action for reconveyance of that
parcel of land. The trial court rendered judgment in their favor.
Petitioners appealed to CA, who later affirmed RTC’s decision in
toto. In relation to prescription, the appellate court ruled that
their cause of action should be considered from the time that they
(plaintiffs) learned of such title in 1988.
Issue: Whether or not the cause of action of the petitioners have
already prescribed?
Held: No. Private respondents 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 the petitioners, who in 1988 disturbed their possession.
Hence, their action is imprescriptible.
Notes:
:: implied / constructive trust – 10 years from the date of
registration of the deed/ the date of the issuance of the certificate
2
PROPERTY
of title over the property, applies when plaintiff is not in
possession of property
Pingol vs. CA
GR No. 102909, September 6, 1993
Facts:
Pingol executed a “Deed of Absolute Sale of ½ of an undivided
portion of a parcel of land” in 1969 in favor of Donasco. After
paying P2000, he immediately took possession of the subject lot
and constructed a house thereon. In January 1970, he started to
pay monthly installments but was able to pay only until 1972.
In 1984, Donasco died and left a balance of P10,161.00 on the
contract price. In 1988, the heirs of Donasco filed for specific
performance against petitioner.
Plaintiffs (heirs of Donasco) averred that they offered to pay the
balance plus the stipulated legal interest thereon to Pingol but he
rebuffed their offer and demanded for a bigger and unreasonable
amount.
Defendants (Pingol) stated affirmative defense and that the causr
of action has already prescribed since the complaint was filed
only in 1988 or more than 10 years from the time that they could
have lawfully demanded performance.
Issue: WON the cause of action already prescribed
Held: No. Although the private respondents’ complaint was
denominated as one for specific performance, it is in effect an
action to quiet title.
Prescription cannot be invoked against the private respondents
for it is aphoristic that an action to quiet title to property in one’s
possession is imprescriptible.
Titong v. CA
GR No. 111141, March 6, 1998
Facts:
(read case again)
Ricardo and Portic vs. Cristobal
GR No. 156171, April 22, 2005
Facts:
Spouses Alcantara and Endrosalam owns a three-door apartment
which was later sold to petitioners with the condition that the
latter shall assume the mortgage over the property by the
spouses in favor of SSS.
Petitioners defaulted in payment, thus, SSS foreclosed the
mortgage and sold the subject property at public auction.
Before the expiration of the redemption period, petitioner sold
the property in favor of respondent. Among others, the parties
agreed that in case respondent should fail to comply with the
condition of paying the down payment and settling the balance
before May 22, 1985, the sale shall be considered void and
petitioners should reimburse respondents of whatever amount
they have paid.
Pineda Notes
Assignment No. 3 – Quieting of Title
In 1984, spouses Alcantara and Endrosalam sold the subject
property to respondent in consideration of P50,000.00. On the
same date, respondent executed a “Deed of Mortgage” to secure
P150,000 in favor of petitioner. Later, TCT in the names of the
spouses was cancelled and a new TCT was issued to respondent.
Petitioners demanded the payment of P55,000 as balance from
respondent, which the latter refused to pay.
Petitioners filed an action to remove cloud on the title issued in
the name of respondent. They claim that they sold the subject
property to respondents on the condition that they pay the
balance before May 22, 1985; otherwise, the sale shall be void
and the petitioners shall reimburse the respondents of the
amount that they have paid. In spite of this failure, respondents
required petitioners to sign a lease contract over the apartment
which the petitioners occupy.
Respondent, on the other hand, claims that the title of the
property is indefeasible; that the property was fully paid; that
they are the true owner of the property and that the petitioners’
claim is already barred by laches.
Issue: WON the petitioners’ cause of action is for quieting of title
and that has not prescribed.
Held: Yes. Because of the findings of the CA that petitioners have
continuous possession in the subject property, their action for
quieting title has not prescribed.
Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation v. Bonifacio
GR No. 167391, June 8, 2011
Facts:
Issue: WON Rivera’s title constitutes a cloud over petitioner’s
titles over Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate
Held: No.
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Ponferrada
GR No. 168943, October 27, 1996
Facts: