QUIETING OF TITLE

Article 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.

Reason
 Quieting of title or removal of a cloud therefrom comes in when there
is an apparently valid or effective instrument or other claim which is in
reality void, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable. The reason is that
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.

Cloud on title, defined.

 A cloud on title is a semblance of title, either legal or equitable, or a
claim or a right in real property, appearing in some legal form but
which is, in fact, invalid or which would be inequitable to enforce.
 Doubt or uncertainty

Requisites for existence of cloud

(1)There is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective.
o Ground for filing must be “an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding.”
o Instrument appears valid on its face
o If instrument is invalid on its face, there is no cloud
o N/A in falsification or fraud
o You can still see that that is not your signature
(2)Such instrument, etc. is, in truth and in fact,
a. invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable (despite its prima
facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy), or
b. had been extinguished or terminated, or
c. has been barred by extinctive prescription (478)
(3)Such instrument, etc. may be prejudicial to said title.

Note: It is not necessary that a cloud is created. Basta naay potential

danger that a cloud may be cast, relief may be granted.

Action to quiet title, defined.

 an action to remove cloud on or to quiet title is a remedy or
proceeding which has for its purpose an adjudication that a claim
 of title to realty or an interest thereon, adverse to the plaintiff, is
invalid or inoperative, or otherwise defective and hence, the
plaintiff and those claiming under him may forever be free of any
hostile claim.
 May only be availed of when there is cloud on title

Requisites for action to quiet title 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 (477)
o Title to real property (discussed further below)
o That upon which ownership is based. It is the evidence of
the right of the owner or the extent of his interest, by
which means one can maintain control and as a rule,
assert a right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of
the property.
o Suitor must have equitable title
 Need not be in possession of property nor have an
absolute title
 “title” does not necessarily refer to the original or
transfer certificate of title (TCT)
 e.g. a mortgagee, usufruct, or beneficiary
o Interest in the property
(2)The deed, claim, 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.

Action to quiet title Action to remove a cloud on

title
Purpose to put an end to troublesome To remove a possible
litigation in respect to the foundation for a future hostile
property involved claim
Nature Remedial action involving a Preventive action to prevent a
of action present adverse claim future cloud on title
Provisio Whenever there is a cloud on An action may also be
n title to real property or any brought to prevent a cloud
interest therein, by reason of from being cast upon title to
any instrument, record, claim, real property or any interest
encumbrance or proceeding therein. (476, par. 2)
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. (476, par. 1)

Action to remove cloud on title is classified in two:

 1. To remove a cloud on title (remedial action)
2. To prevent the casting of a (threatened) cloud on title (preventive
action)

Some doctrines:
 The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land. Once
a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity
of waiting in the portals of the court, to avoid the possibility of losing
his land. (Salao v. Salao)
 Where both parties have certificates of title over the same parcel of
land, either party may file a complaint for quieting of title pursuant to
Article 476. (Sy, Sr. v. IAC)
 A possessor in the concept of owner is not barred from bringing an
action for reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to
property against a registered owner relying upon a Torrens title which
was illegally or wrongfully acquired. (Caragay-Layno v. CA)
 A sale of land in a private instrument is valid. A person whose
purchase of land is evidenced by a private instrument may bring an
action to compel the prior owner or his heirs to execute a deed of
conveyance in a public instrument. This action is not for specific
performance; it may be considered an action to quiet title, to remove
the cloud cast on plaintiff’s ownership, where the heir refuses to
recognize the sale made by his predecessor. (Gallar v. CA)
 Where despite the fact that the title to the land sold had been
transferred to the buyer by the execution of the deed of sale and the
delivery of the object of the contract, the seller adamantly refused to
accept the tender of payment by the buyer, insisting his obligation to
transfer title had been rendered ineffective by prescription, it is
indubitable that a cloud has been cast on the title of the buyer.
(Pingol v. CA). An action to quiet title to property in one’s possession
is imprescriptible.
 A person who claims ownership of a parcel of agricultural land of the
public domain for having possessed it in the concept of an owner,
openly, peacefully, publicly, continuously and adversely since 1920
has a cause of action for quieting of title against the grantee of a free
patent where such land was illegally included in the free patent and
original certificate of the latter. It is settled that a free patent issued
over private land is null and void. (Heirs of M. Nagaño v. CA).
 In a case for ejectment, any finding of the court regarding the issue of
ownership is merely provisional and not conclusive. The ruling in a
case for quieting of title is conclusive. The finding in the case for
quieting of title prevails over the ruling in the forcible entry case.
(Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres v. Heirs of M. Abella)
Nature of action

1. Suit quasi in rem

 Not technically a suit in rem, nor is it a suit in personam

Controversy Scope of Judgment

The res (the property, Does not extend beyond
Suit in rem
tangible or intangible) the property in controversy
Mainly involves the enforceable only against
defendant (suit against the the defeated party and his
Suit in
defendant) privies and shall not
personam
prejudice persons who are
not parties to the action.
The res is within the court’s Conclusive only between
jurisdiction, and it is the parties
because of that
circumstance that the court
is able to adjudicate the
Suit quasi in
defendant’s interest in it.
rem
It is not essential that the
court acquire jurisdiction of
the person of the
defendant.

2. Common law remedy

 Follows the principle of equity
 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.
o Action N/A: where the action would require the court
hearing it to modify or interfere with the judgment or order
of another co-equal court.
 Doctrine of non-interference
 a trial court has no authority to interfere with
the proceedings of a court of equal
jurisdiction, much less to annul the final
judgment of a co-equal court
3. action for reconveyance
 it is equivalent to an action for reconveyance of title wrongfully
or erroneously registered in another’s name where the
successful outcome of such action would necessarily entail the
cancellation of existing title wrongfully issued to another
Benefits from allowing actions
1. affords prompt and adequate method to remove cloud on title
2. promotes improvement of property
 owner could, without fear, introduce the improvements he may
desire, to use and even to abuse the property as he deems
best

Action is applicable to
1. real property or any interest therein
 GR: applies to real property only, and not to personal property
 may refer to
a. the title, OR
b. an interest therein
o usufruct
o servitude
o lease record
o real mortgage
2. certain types of personal property
 XPN: under exceptional circumstances, action may apply to
personalty which partake of the nature of real property or are
treated to some extent as realty because of registration
requirements for ownership or transactions
o Vessels
o Motor vehicles
o Certificate of stocks

Prescriptibility of action
1. Plaintiff in possession – DOES NOT PRESCRIBE
2. Plaintiff not in possession – prescribes WITHIN 10 YRS (ordinary
prescription) or 30 YEARS (extraordinary prescription)
Note: even before the prescriptive period ends, action may be barred
by laches (doctrine of estoppel).
 Laches is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable length of
time to assert a right, warranting a presumption that the
party entitled to assert it has abandoned or declined to
assert it. It can be invoked without reckoning any specific
or fixed period. It is sufficient that there is an
unreasonable and unexplained delay in bringing an action
that its maintenance would constitute inequity or injustice
to the party invoking laches.

Article 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.

Title and possession of plaintiff

1. Title or interest
 “legal title”
 o may consist in full ownership or in naked ownership which
is registered in the name of the plaintiff
 “equitable title”
o In trusts, the beneficiary who has the beneficial interest in
the property the legal title of which pertains to another
(the trustee), is said to have equitable title.
o In homestead patents, a homesteader who has complied
with all the terms and conditions which would entitle him
to a patent, has a vested right over the land, and may be
regarded as the equitable owner thereof.
 “interest in property”
o any interest short of ownership, like the interest of a
mortgagee or a usufructuary.

Metrobank & Trust Co v. Alejo

FACTS: In a suit to nullify an existing TCT in which a real estate mortgage

is annotated, the trial court cancelled the TCT in the name of the mortgagor
without notice to the mortgagee (bank) who is an indispensable party
thereby rendering the judgment null and void.

ISSUE: Is an action for quieting of title an appropriate remedy in this case?

HELD: NO. An action for quieting of title will not remedy what the
mortgagee perceived as a disregard of due process. The subject judgment
cannot be considered as a cloud on the mortgagee’s title or interest over
the property, which does not even have a semblance of being a title. It
could not be proper to consider the judgment as a cloud that would warrant
the filing of an action for quieting of title, because to do so would require
the court hearing the action to modify or interfere with the judgment or
order of another co-equal court.

2. Possession
 Plaintiff MAY or MAY NOT be in possession of the property
o if not in possession, he may bring one of the three
accions in addition to the action to quiet title

Article 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove

a cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation
has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by
extinctive prescription.

Two cases where action allowed (478)

- when the contract, instrument, or other obligation has been
1. extinguished, or has terminated
 e.g. where the right of the defendant to the property has been
extinguished by the happening of a condition subsequent
 o donation of land shall be cancelled upon failure of donee
municipality to build a school house thereon within a
certain period
2. barred by extinctive prescription
 e.g. where the plaintiff has possessed in bad faith the property
publicly, adversely, and uninterruptedly for thirty years

Article 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits
he may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses
that may have redounded to the plaintiff's benefit.

Obligation of plaintiff to return or reimburse (479)

 “he who seeks equity must do equity”
 Purpose of action to quiet title is SOLELY TO REMOVE THE CLOUD
on plaintiff’s title or TO PREVENT A CLOUD FROM BEING CAST
upon his title, and NOT to obtain any other benefit.
o Hence, he is bound to return to the defendant all the benefits he
may have received from the latter or reimburse him for the
expenses incurred on the property which has redounded to the
plaintiff’s benefit less any damage, if any, suffered by the
plaintiff by reason of the contract, etc. and whatever benefits
received by the defendant from the property.

Article 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of

title are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with this
Code.

 Refers to general principles developed on the subject in Anglo-

American jurisprudence, where this remedy is well-known

Article 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal
of a cloud therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court as the
Supreme Court shall promulgated.

 SC has not yet provided the procedural rules on the quieting of title.

RUINOUS BUILDINGS
AND TREES IN DANGER OF FALLING

Art. 482. If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is

in danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged to demolish it or to
execute the necessary work in order to prevent it from falling.

If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the

administrative authorities may order the demolition of the structure at
the expense of the owner, or take measures to insure public safety.
Buildings, etc. in danger of falling
 Owner has duty to:
o to demolish a building, etc. in danger of falling or
o to repair the same in order to prevent it from falling
 Ownership rights limited by police powers of the state (436) 1
o If owner fails to do so, administrative authorities may order the
demolition of the structure, or when demolition is not necessary,
take measures to insure public safety.
o sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas – Use your property as not
to injure others
 related provisions: Art. 2190, 2191, 2192, 1723

Art. 483. Whenever a large tree threatens to fall in such a way as to

cause damage to the land or tenement of another or to travelers over
a public or private road, the owner of the tree shall be obliged to fell
and remove it; and should he not do so, it shall be done at his
expense by order of the administrative authorities.

Large trees about to fall

 owner has duty to fell and remove such trees
 he may be compelled to do it, or work shall be done at his expense
by the administrative authorities

Police power of the state includes:

 power to abate a nuisance per se
o the thing becomes a nuisance as a matter of law
o ruinous buildings and trees in danger of falling are a nuisance
per se
 power to abate a nuisance per accidens
o those which become nuisances by reason of circumstances and
surroundings, and if an act creates any danger and inflicts injury
upon a person or property

1
Article 436. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or
security, the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such condemnation or
seizure is unjustified. (n) ARTICLE 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything
under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem
proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of the
reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.