Quieting of Title
every cloud of doubt over the property
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 enforceable, 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.
Statement of the Code Commission Explaining
the REASON for the Chapter on Quieting of Title:
a) Sec 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure
provides that actions to remove a cloud
from the title to real estate shall be brought
in the province where the land is situated.
b) No provision of the substantive law states
under what conditions the action may be
brought
c) This is a well-established remedy in American
Law. Equity comes to the aid of him who
would suffer if the instrument were enforced.
He is in good conscience entitled to a removal
of the cloud or doubt upon his title.
Severino Baricuatro, Jr. vs CA, et al.
Quieting of title is a common-law remedy
for the removal of any CLOUD upon or
DOUBT or UNCERTAINTY with respect to title
to real property
Purpose is to secure 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 hostile claim.
Competent court is tasked to determine the
respective rights of the complainant and other
claimants,” not only to place things in their
proper place, to make the one who has no
rights to said immovable respect and not
disturb the other, but also for the benefit of
both, so that he who has the right would see
dissipated, and he could afterwards without
fear introduce the improvements he may desire,
to use, and even to abuse the property as he
deems best.
Kinds of Action Referred to
a) Remedial – action to remove the cloud or to
quiet title (Art. 476, par. 1)
b) Preventive – action to prevent a future cloud
or doubt (action quia timet)
Existence of the Cloud
The cloud or doubt on title exists because:
a) Of an instrument (deed or contract) or record or
claim or encumbrance or proceeding (PRICE)
b) which is apparently valid or effective
c) But is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable or extinguished
(or terminated) or barred by extinctive
prescription
d) And may be prejudicial to the title
Examples:
Agent, whose authority not in writing, sold land
of principal to another person. Deed of sale was
a public instrument.
 Sale by an agent of land is not valid,
because authority is not in writing
 If buyer insists on claiming the property
as his own, may the PRINCIPAL bring an
action to quiet title?
Yes. On the face of the deed of sale,
nothing appears to be wrong. It is
therefore apparently valid although in
REALITY, in reality, it is NULL and VOID
because of Art 1874
If the deed of sale provided that authority
given was not in writing, it is clear on the
face of the contract that it is invalid – no
cloud, it is NOT PROPER to bring the
action

Forgery
 O’s land was sold by F (forger) to B (Buyer
in good faith). O’s name forged on the deed
of sale.
 Sale, on its face, is apparently valid, with
name indicated as the seller. But sale is
defective because of the forgery.
 O’s remedy is an action to quiet title.
when the instrument is not valid on its face,
the remedy does not apply
 TEST whether invalid on its face:
If a person sued for ejectment on the
strength of the contract, does he have to
produce evidence in order to defeat the
action?
- If no evidence other than the contract is
needed, it is because the contract is
invalid on its face.
- if evidence is STILL NEEDED, it is
because the contract is apparently
valid.
 Test is would the owner of the property in
an action at law brought by the adverse
party and founded upon the instrument or
claim, be required to offer evidence to
defeat recovery?
- If proof would be essential, the cloud
exists
- If proof is not needed, no cloud is cast.
National Grains Authority vs IAC
Real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet
title to land and to stop forever any question as
to its legality.
An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrents
Title is not allowed
Exception: where a person obtains a certificate
of title to land belonging to another and he has
full knowledge of the rights of the true owners.
 he is guilty of fraud and may thus be
compelled to transfer the land to the
defrauded owner so long as it has not
passed to the hands of an INNOCENT
PURCHASER for VALUE.
Rights of a Property Owner to have CLOUDS
ELIMINATED:
When one is disturbed in any form in his rights of
property over an immovable by the unfounded
claim of others, he has the RIGHT to ask from the
competent courts:
a) that their respective rights be determined,
b) not only to place things in their proper place,
to make the one who has no rights to said
immovable respect and not disturb the
other,
c) but also for the benefit of both
d) so that he who has the right would see
every cloud of doubt over the property
dissipated
e) and he could afterwards without fear
introduce the improvements he may desire,
to use, and even to abuse the property as
he deems best.
Reasons for allowing the action:
1) the prevention of litigation (eventual
litigation)
2) protection of the true title and possession
3) promotion of right and justice
Some Decided Doctrines where it was held that
there existed a Cloud over the Title
a) An agent, with the written authority of his
principal to sell the latter’s property, sold the
same AFTER the death of the principal but
antedated the contract of sale.
b) If the contract is forged
c) A contract by an incapacitated person
d) A mortgage valid on its face and will cause
prejudice although in reality invalid
Requisite needed to bring an action to PREVENT a
cloud (action or Bill QUIA TIMET)
It must be made clear that there is a fixed
determination on the part of the defendant to
create a cloud
Not sufficient that the danger is merely
speculative
e.g.
if the sheriff threatens to attach property which is
exempted from attachment, an action to prevent a
cloud on title will prosper
Does the Action to Quiet Title Prescribe?
It depends:
1) If the plaintiff is IN POSSESSION of the
property, the action DOES NOT PRESCRIBE.
While the owner continues to be liable to an
action, proceeding or suit upon the adverse
claim, he has a continuing right to be
given aid by the court to ascertain and
determine the nature of such claim and its
effect on his title, or to assert any
superior equity in his favor.
He may WAIT until his possession is
disturbed or his title is attacked before
taking steps to vindicate his right
A buyer of land in 1931, who possesses it
from that date may still compel the seller’s
successors-in-interest to execute the proper
deed of conveyance in 1954, so that the
deed may be registered
2) If the plaintiff is NOT IN POSSESSION of the
property, the action MAY PRESCRIBE:
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
If somebody else has possession, the
period of prescription for the recovery of the
land is either 10 or 30 years, depending on
ORDINARY or EXTRAORDINARY
prescription.
Even if brought within the prescriptive
period, the action may no longer prosper if
there has been an unreasonable or
unjustified delay in filing the suit ----
estoppel by LACHES
As a general rule, an action to quiet title does not
prescribe (Berico vs CA)
Gallar vs Hussain
Hussain sold a retro in a private instrument a
parcel of land to Chichirita, but the right of
repurchase not exercised. Buyer sold land to
another who in turn sold and delivered the
same in 1919 to Gallar. Gallar sued in 1960
(after 41 yrs) the heirs of Hussain to compel
them to execute a formal deed of conveyance
so that Gallar could obtain a transfer certificate
of title
Heirs interposed the defense of prescription
 Gallar’s suit an action to QUIET TITLE
because Gallar was the owner and the sale
had been consummated, despite the fact
that the transactions had all been merely in
private instruments
 The suit had not prescribed, as the plaintiff
is in possession
 But if Heirs of Hussain had been in
possession, Gallar’s suit would not have
prescribed for then the action would not be
one to quiet title, but one to recover real
property
Vda. De Cabrera vs. CA
Action for reconveyance of a parcel of land
based on IMPLIED or CONSTRUCTIVE
TRUST prescribes in 10 years, the point of
reference being the date of registration of the
deed or the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title over the property
this is only applicable when the plaintiff or
person enforcing the trust is NOT in
possession of the property, since if a person
claiming to be the owner is in actual
possession of the property, as the defendants
are in the instant case, the right to seek
reconveyance, which in effect, seeks to quiet
title to the property does not prescribe
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.
Necessity for the Title of the Plaintiff
The plaintiff must either have the legal
(registered) ownership or the equitable
(beneficial) ownership. Otherwise, the action will continued ownership, Y may bring the action to
not prosper. quiet title.
A possessed B’s land in bad faith adversely,
One who has complied with all the terms and publicly and continuously for 30 yrs. A is
conditions which entitle him to a homestead patent, now therefore the owner. If B still insists on
even without a right on the land is to be regarded his ownership, A may bring the action to quiet
as EQUITABLE OWNER (Nieto vs Quines) title. In this case, B can really not recover the
land anymore from A.
A owns a piece of land mortgaged to Y. If later
Non-necessity of Possession the mortgage is extinguished because of the
in possession Not in possession statute of limitations, A may bring the action to
quiet title or remove the cloud for it is evident
that the mortgage no longer exists.
prescription Does not prescribe Period prescribes
Art 479. The plaintiff must return to the
defendant all benefits he may have received
from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses
Rights *to remove cloud *to remove or that may have redounded to the plaintiff’s
*to prevent cloud prevent cloud
benefit.
*may also bring the
ordinary actions of
-ejectment Duty of Plaintiff to Make Certain
-publiciana Reimbursement
-reivindicatoria A bought land thru an agent whose authority
was NOT in writing. A then built a fence around
the land. In an action to quiet title, the principal
With my brother’s authority, and as a result of a will win, but he must REIMBURSE A for the
TRUST AGREEMENT, I registered the land of my expenses for the fence, since this has
brother in my name. Neither of us is in actual redounded to his benefit.
possession. Who may bring action to quiet title Any expense made by A for the execution or
against a stranger? registration of the contract must be
Ans. reimbursed
Either my brother or me, since my brother
has the equitable title, while I have the legal title. General Rule based on Equity
Neither of us needs possession before the action Whenever the plaintiff is shown to be legally or
is brought morally bound to restore or reimburse he must do
so.
He who comes to equity must do equity and
Art. 478 because the precise purpose of the action is
There may also be an action to quiet title or merely to quiet title and NOT to obtain some
remove a cloud therefrom when the contract, pecuniary benefits.
instrument, or other obligation has been
extinguished or has terminated or has been
barred by extinctive prescription.

2 INSTANCES where the Action may be Used

1. when the contract, etc. has ended
2. when the action is barred by extinctive
prescription

Examples:
Y gave X ownership over a piece of land for 5
years. At the end of that time, if X insists on his