Republic v. Mangotara [G.R. Nos.

170375, 178779 and 178894]

Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, Land Trade Realty Corporation, Teofilo Cacho and/or Atty.
Godofredo Cabildo

Respondent: Hon. Mamindiara Mangotara, Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation and Philippine National
Bank, Demetria Vidal and AZIMUTH

Ponente: Leonardo-De Castro, J

Doctrine:

Article 476 of the Civil Code lays down the circumstances when a person may institute an action for
quieting of title:

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.

Facts:

These petitions happened primarily because the dispute over Lots 1 and 2 from the 1997 Cacho case did
not end yet although that case was already terminated. Thus, there are four cases that were filed which
involved the same parcels of land even before the 1997 Cacho case ended. These cases are: (1) the
Expropriation Case, G.R. No. 170375; (2) the Quieting of Title Case, G.R. Nos. 178779 and 178894; (3) the
Ejectment or Unlawful Detainer Case, G.R. No. 170505 (execution pending appeal before the RTC) and
G.R. Nos. 173355-56 and 173563-64 (execution pending appeal before the Court of Appeals); and (4) the
Cancellation of Titles and Reversion Case, G.R. No. 173401.

In the second case, it pertains to the quieting of title case which was filed by Demetria Vidal (Vidal) and
AZIMUTH against Teofilo, Atty. Cabildo, and the Register of Deeds of Iligan City, before the RTC Branch-
3. This petition started when Vidal claimed that she, and not Teofilo, was the late Demetria's sole
surviving heir, entitled to the parcels of land covered by OCT Nos. 0-1200 (a.f.) and 0-1201 (a.f.). She
averred that she is the daughter of Francisco Cacho Vidal (Francisco) and Fidela Arellano Confesor in
which Francisco was the only child of Don Dionisio Vidal and Demetria. Meanwhile, AZIMUTH became
the successor-in-interest of Vidal’s 23-hectare portion of the subject parcels of land through the Deed of
Conditional Conveyance that the latter executed in favor of the former. Consequently, Teofilo opposed
this by contending that it stated no cause of action because there was no title being disturbed or in
danger of being lost due to the claim of a third party, and that Vidal had neither legal nor beneficial
ownership of the parcels of land in question. Thereafter, the RTC ruled in favor of Vidal and AZIMUTH.
This was then contended by Teofilo as it filed an appeal before the CA but to no avail as the latter court
upheld the finding of the RTC by ruling that Vidal has a right over the subject parcels of land being found
as the granddaughter and sole heiress of the late Dona Demetria. The CA also ruled that Vidal’s cause of
action has not prescribed yet since prescriptive period for real actions over immovables is 30 years
where Vidal's rights as Demetria's successor-in-interest accrued upon the latter's death in 1974, and
only 24 years thereafter, in 1998, where this action was filed. As a result, Teofilo and Atty. Cabildo filed
separate motions for reconsideration but were denied by the CA as well.

Issue:

1. Whether or not this case is an ordinary civil action for reconveyance and not an action for quieting of
title?

2. Whether or not Vidal and AZIMUTH have no cause of action nor legal or equitable title or interest in
the parcels of land covered by the subject parcels of land?

Held:

1. No. The court ruled that this case could not be considered an action for reconveyance as it is not
based on the allegation that the two parcels of land, Lots 1 and 2, have been wrongfully registered in
another person's name. This is because OCT Nos. 0-1200 (a.f.) and 0-1201 (a.f.), covering the subject
properties, are still in Demetria's name in which both Vidal and Teofilo have failed to transfer the
registration of the said properties to her/his name as of yet since they each have claims over the said
lands. But the court ruled that this case is an action for quieting of title, which is a special proceeding
wherein the court is precisely tasked to determine the rights of the parties as to a particular parcel of
land, so that the complainant and those claiming under him/her may be forever free from any danger of
hostile claim. This happened because there was a cloud on Vidal’s title which she wants to remove by
proving that she was the sole heir of Dona Demetria and effectively freeing her title from any adverse
claim just like what Teofilo is contending in this case.

2. No. The court did not sustain the allegations of Teofilo and Atty. Cabildo that Vidal and AZIMUTH have
no cause of action for quieting of title in this case since Vidal has no title to the two parcels of land, and
that Teofilo’s title was already established in the 1997 Cacho case. This court did not admit such
contentions because of the concept of a cause of action in ordinary civil actions that cannot apply to an
action for quieting of title. In addition, the court elaborated that in an action for quieting of title, the
subject matter is the title sought to have quieted in which "Title" is not limited to the certificate of
registration under the Torrens System (i.e., OCT or TCT). This was ruled pursuant to Article 477 of the
Civil Code where the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property
subject of the action for quieting of title. Thus, the plaintiff need not even be in possession of the
property if she is indeed Demetria's sole heir, since Vidal already has equitable title to or interest in the
two parcels of land by right of succession, even though she has not yet secured certificates of title to the
said properties in her name. Furthermore, the court found that Vidal was indeed the sole heir of Dona
Demetria since it was found that respondent Teofilo Cacho is not the son of the registered owner of the
Subject Property, the late Demetria Cacho Vidal. Not only that, respondent Cacho also committed false
pretenses and fraudulent acts in representing himself as son and sole heir of Demetria Cacho (Vidal) in
his petition in court, which eventually led to the reconstitution of the titles of Demetria Cacho (Vidal).
Therefore, the misrepresentation that Teofilo made gave rise to the claim of Vidal on the subject
property which casted cloud on latter’s title to the subject property. Thus, it is only right that Vidal made
this petition in order to protect her ownership from acts tending to cast doubt on her title, which are
among the legal remedies she could pursue like this petition for Quieting of Title specifically found under
Articles 476 to 481 of the Civil Code.