Coronel v IAC G.R. No.

70191

Facts:

Coronel filed a complaint for recovery of possession of land against private respondents Elias
Merlan et. al and demanded them to vacate the premises in which the respondents refused to
do so. They claimed that Coronel is not the owner of the whole parcel of land and that the 1/3 lot
that they are occupying is their inheritance from their deceased father.

Private respondents alleged that it was actually their other co-heirs who sold the land and that
the ownership of Coronel is fraudulent, void, and without effect as they have always been in
open and peaceful possession of their undivided share of the lot throughout the years. They
prayed that the plaintiff respect their rights over 1/3 of Lot No. 1950-A of the Naic Estate.

Mariano Manalo, the predecessor in interest of Coronel bought the 2/3 share of the land. The
Transfer of Certificate of Title, was incorrect because it covered the whole land instead of the
supposed 2/3 share. In their Third-Party Complaint, the defendants charged that their co-owners
of defrauding them when they sold the entire parcel.

Petitioner contends that the claim of the private respondents over their 1/3 undivided portion 25
years after the registration of the deed of sale and more than five (5) years after the registration
of the deed of sale in favor of Mariano Manalo is barred by prescription or laches. There was
undue delay on the part of the private respondents to claim their 1/3 portion of Lot No. 1950-A of
the Naic Estate and that the action for annulment should have been brought within four (4)
years counted from the date of the registration of the instrument.

Issue: Whether or not the action to Quiet Title has already prescribed.

Ruling:

No. 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. If at all, the private respondents' right, to quiet title,
to seek reconveyance and to annul Transfer Certificate of Title accrued only in 1975 when they
were made aware of a claim adverse to their own. It was only at that time that, the statutory
period of prescription may be said to have commenced to run against them.
Fernandez v CA GR 83141

Facts: Petitioners-spouses Florentino and Vivencia Fernandez and private respondent Zenaida
Angeles-Fernandez and the latter's husband Justiniano Fernandez purchased in common a
parcel of land with an area of 310 square meters. A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in
favor of Zenaida and Justiniano only. They also acknowledge the sale of the portion of land to
the spouses Florentino and Vivencia by executing an affidavit.

The classification of the property requires for a family house to have 240 sqm and no 2 separate
and independent family can be built on the 310 sqm lot. Moreover the Register of Deeds will not
issue a separate title for only 110 sqm. Thus a duplex was built which was occupied by the
petitioners and respondents.

Zenaida and Justiniano caused the issuance of a certificate of title only in their names and later
on filed a petition for voluntary dissolution of their conjugal partnership. Justiniano waived all his
rights to the conjugal properties including the subject parcel of land and the land was awarded
to Zenaida. Zenaida demanded that petitioners vacate the premises of the lot awarded to her.
Florentino and Vivencia filed an action to quiet title and damages against Zenaida Fernandez.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in ruling that the cause of action of petitioners had already
prescribed in view of the issuance of a certificate of title in the name of the Spouses Justiniano
and Zenaida Fernandez.

Ruling:

No. The Torrens system should not be used as a shield to protect fraud. Moreover, 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. There is no sufficient basis for the respondent court to conclude
that spouses Zenaida and Justiniano were possessing the entire property adversely against
petitioners. At most, the first time that respondent Zenaida Fernandez claimed adverse
possession of the entire premises was when she demanded from petitioners the possession of
the unit possessed by.The decision of private respondent to claim total ownership of the
premises was in fact, pursued only half-heartedly by her because the second time that she
demanded possession of the premises was four (4) years after an action to quiet title was filed
by petitioners. In Almanza v. Arguelles, L-49250, December 21, 1987, the court held that,
"prescription cannot be invoked in an action for reconveyance, which is, in effect an action to
quiet title against the plaintiff therein who is in possession of the land in question. 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 v Moson GR 92557

Facts: Maamdsual filed a complaint against private respondents for "Quieting of Title To
Property, Annulment of Original Certificates of Title Nos. P-122 and P-138, and Damages, With
Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction".

Defendants field a motion for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs have no
title to the property which is the subject of this suit, hence, their action to quiet title thereto is not
proper. Plaintiffs, opposed the motion on the issue of no title to the property which is the
subject-matter of the case, 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.

Issue: Whether or not the complaint has no cause of action on the ground that the plaintiffs
have no legal or equitable title to the land in question.

Ruling:

The trial court held that in an action to quiet title the plaintiff "must" have legal or equitable title
to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. It interpreted legal
title to mean registered ownership and equitable title to mean beneficial ownership.

It is not necessary that the person seeking to quiet his title is the registered owner of the
property in question. Thus, "title" to property does not necessarily mean the original transfer
certificate of title. It can connote acquisitive prescription by possession in the concept of an
owner thereof. Indeed, one who has an equitable right or interest in the property may also file an
action to quiet title under the law.

Since the action in this case is one to quiet title to property whereby petitioners claim to have
acquired title to the same by prescription, the property was thereby effectively withdrawn from
the public domain and became property of private ownership. Thus, the ruling of the trial court
that the action being one for reversion only the Solicitor General can institute the same has no
cogent basis.
Pingol v CA GR 102909

Facts: Vicente Pingol executed a "DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE OF ONE-HALF OF (1/2) OF

AN UNDIVIDED PORTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND" in favor of Francisco N. Donasco.
Donasco paid P2, 000.00 to Pingol pursuant to the contract, and immediately took possession
of the subject lot and constructed a house. He started paying the monthly installments but was
able to pay only up to 1972.

Donasco died leaving a balance of P10,161.00 on the contract price. The subject property
remained in the possession of Donasco's heirs. Later on, the heirs of Donasco filed an action for
"Specific Performance and Damages, with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction" against the
petitioners.

The plaintiffs (private respondents herein) averred that they offered to pay the balance of
P10,161.00 plus the stipulated legal rate of interest thereon to Vicente Pingol but the latter
refused their offer and has "been demanding for a bigger and unreasonable amount, in
complete variance to what is lawfully due and payable." They stated that they had "exerted
earnest efforts to forge or reach an amicable and peaceful settlement with the defendants" for
the payment of the property in question but to no avail. They further alleged that the defendants
were committing "acts of forcible entry and encroachment" upon their land and asked that a writ
of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain the defendants from the acts complained of.

The defendants claimed that plaintiffs' cause of action had already prescribed;

Issue: Whether or not private respondents' cause of action has not prescribe.

Ruling:

No. Although the private respondents' complaint before the trial court was denominated as one
for specific performance, it is in effect an action to quiet title.

That a cloud has been cast on the title of the private respondents is indubitable. 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, the petitioners adamantly refused to accept the tender of payment
by the private respondents and steadfastly insisted that their obligation to transfer title had been
rendered ineffective.

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.

Prescription thus 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.