UP Law F2021 [003] Calacala v.

Republic
Civil Procedure: Introduction Art. 476 and 477 NCC 2005 Garcia
(Substantive v. Remedial Law) ROC Rule 39, sec. 33

SUMMARY

Petitioners, as predecessor-in-interest of the owners of a parcel of land, filed an Action for Quieting of Title
and Cancellation of Encumbrance against the Republic. Republic acquired the disputed land in a Public
Auction upon its forfeiture as a property bond in a criminal case. The Petitioners allege that the Republic, by
its failure to secure the necessary Certificate of Final Sale, Writ of Execution and by its failure to Execute an
Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership within ten years from the sale, in effect abandoned its rights to the
land. The Court ruled in favor of the republic and held that petitioners failed to satisfy the requisites in NCC
477 for an Action for Quieting of Title to Prosper.

The Court said that pursuant to the 1977 ROC, the ownership is consolidated upon the person of the
purchaser upon failure of the seller to redeem the property. The Court also held that although the 1997 ROC
was not yet in effect when the facts of the case transpired, it is still controlling because procedural laws are
construed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. It is deemed
retroactive in that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws
cannot be considered violative of any personal rights because no vested right may attach to nor arise
therefrom.

FACTS

 Camilo and Conchita Calacala (Spouses Calacala) used a parcel of land they owned in Rosales,
Pangasinan as a property bond to secure the provisional release of an accused in a criminal case.
However, the accused failed to appear during arraignment and a judgment in the amount of P3,500
was rendered against the property bond. A Writ of Execution was later issued and a Notice of Levy
was annotated in the TCT of the land pursuant to the Writ.
 On September 24, 1982, the land was sold at a public auction and the Republic was the winning bidder.
On the same day, a Sherrif’s Certificate of Sale was issued to the Republic. On October 5, 1982, the
Certificate of Sale was annotated in the land’s TCT, giving the spouses Calacala one (1) year to redeem
the property, which they never did until their deaths in 1988 and 1994.
 Petitioners, as heirs of the Spouses Calacala, filed an Action for Quieting of Title and Cancellation of
Encumbrance on TCT No. T-21204 against respondents. Meanwhile, Republic filed a Motion to Dismiss
saying that the 1) Petitioners failed to state a cause of action; and that 2) their action has already
prescribed.
 Petitioners filed their Opposition to the Republic’s Motion saying that the Republic, in arguing that
petitioners failed to state a cause of action, in effect admitted all the allegations in their Action. More
specifically, it admitted that even after 19 years, Republic failed to secure the necessary Certificate of
Final Sale and Writ of Execution and failed to Execute an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership. They
add that by filing a Motion to Dismiss Republic likewise admitted that petitioners’ predecessors have
been in continuous possession of the subject land and paying the realty taxes thereon.
 RTC: Granted Republic’s Motion to Dismiss and Dismissed Petitioners’ complaint. MR Denied.
 Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) where petitioners claim that they remain the
owners of the land despite failing to redeem it within the one-year period as the Republic failed to
secure the Certificate of Final Sale, execute an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and obtain a
writ of possession over the property within Ten (10) years from the registration of its Certificate of
Sale. They argue that the Republic’s right over the property has been abandoned or waived.
 The Republic, on the other hand, argue that its right as an owner was perfected when the petitioners
failed to redeem the property within one year from the registration/annotation of the Sherrif’s
Certificate of Sale on the TCT.

RATIO
 W/N the RTC erred in dismissing petitioner’s Action for Quieting of Title.
NO. Under Article 4761 of the New Civil Code, an action for Quieting of Title may be availed of only when,
by reason of any instrument, which appears valid but is, in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable or
unenforceable, a cloud is thereby casted on a title. Meanwhile, under Art. 477,2 two indispensable
requisites must be present for the Action to prosper: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an
equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance
or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

In this case, the petitioners failed to satisfy the two requirements.

First, petitioners are bereft of any equitable claim on the property because their predecessors-in-interest
lost whatever right they had over land in question from the moment they failed to redeem it during the 1-
year period of redemption. Republic's failure to execute the acts referred to by the petitioners cannot, in
any way, operate to restore whatever rights they lost. Republic's failure to do anything within ten (10)
years following the registration of the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale cannot give rise to a presumption that it
has abandoned its right of ownership.

On the contrary, Section 33, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides that "upon the
expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all
the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the levy.” As such,
the issuance of the Deed of Sale becomes a mere formality.

Even though the 1977 Rules of Procedure was yet inexistent at the time of the sale, it still applies to the
present case as enunciated in Lascano v. Universal Steel Smelting Co. Inc.:

Procedural laws are construed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined

at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that
extent. As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be
considered violative of any personal rights because no vested right may attach to nor
arise therefrom.

Second, petitioners questioned the validity of the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale duly registered on 5 October
1982. On this score, the second requisite of an action to quiet title, namely, that the deed, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding alleged to cast cloud on a plaintiffs title is in fact invalid despite its prima facie
appearance of validity, is likewise absent.

FALLO
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed resolution and order of the trial court
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

1
ART. 476 Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable,
and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.
2
ART. 477 The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject-matter of the action. He
need not be in possession of said property.