G.R. NO.

227894
JOSE S. OCAMPO, VS. RICARDO S. OCAMPO, SR.

“Considering that respondent was in actual possession of the disputed land at the
time of the filing of the complaint, the present case may be treated as an action
for quieting of title.

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt or
uncertainty affecting title to real property. In Heirs of Delfin and Maria Tappa v.
Heirs of Jose Bacud, this Court reiterated the requisites for an action for quieting
of title:

The action filed by Spouses Tappa was one for quieting of title and recovery of
possession. In Baricuatro Jr. v. Court of Appeals, an action for quieting of title is
essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity, to wit:

xxx Originating in equity jurisprudence, its 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.”
In an action for quieting of title, the 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 every cloud of doubt over the property 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. X x x”

A cloud on title exists when (1) there is an instrument (deed, or contract) or

record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is apparently valid or
effective; (3) but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable or extinguished (or terminated) or barred by extinctive
prescription; and (4) and may be prejudicial to the title.

Since it was already established that respondent’s signature on the ESW, which
was the basis of petitioner’s title over the property, was forged, then it is only
necessary for the cloud on respondent’s title to be removed. Thus, the trial
court’s order to cancel TCT No __ and uphold the parties’ co-ownership was
proper.
G.R. NO. 222031

The Torrens system was adopted to “obviate possible conflicts of title by giving
the public the right to rely upon the face of the Torrens certificate and to
dispense, as a rule, with the necessity of inquiring further.”

From this sprung the doctrinal rule that every person dealing with registered land
may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and is
in no way obliged to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the
property. To be sure, this Court is not unaware of the recognized exceptions to
this rule, to wit: (1) when the party has actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make further
inquiry; (2) when the buyer has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his
vendor; or (3) when the buyer/mortgagee is a bank or an institution of similar
nature as they are enjoined to exert a higher degree of diligence, care, and
prudence than individuals in handling real estate transactions.

Complementing this doctrinal rule is the concept of an innocent purchaser for

value, which refers to someone who buys the property of another without notice
that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays in full and fair
the price at the time of the purchase or without receiving any notice of another
person’s claim.

Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree

recognizes innocent purchasers for value and their right to rely on a clean title:

Section 44. Statutory liens affecting title. – Every registered owner receiving
certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent
purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and good faith,
shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted in said
certificate and any of the following encumbrances which may be subsisting xxx
xxx xxx