[ G.R. No.

216024, September 18, 2019 ]

SPS. ERNESTO V. YU AND ELSIE YU, PETITIONERS, VS. EULOGIO A. TOPACIO, JR.,
RESPONDENT.

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. It
has for its bases Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code, which provide:

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.

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.

As to the action for recovery of possession, the rule is settled that in order for it to prosper,
it is indispensable that he who brings the action fully proves not only his ownership but
also the identity of the property claimed, by describing the location, area and boundaries
thereof. Indeed, he who claims to have a better right to the property must clearly show that
the land possessed by the other party is the very land that belongs to him. Said action is
governed by Article 434 of the Civil Code, which states that the property must be identified
and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of
defendant's claim.

An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful
landowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another,
to compel the registered owner to transfer or reconvey the land to him. The plaintiff must
allege and prove his ownership of the land in dispute and the defendant's erroneous,
fraudulent or wrongful registration of the property. As can be seen, reconveyance is the
remedy of the rightful owner only.

We find no error on the rulings of the courts below that the action for quieting of title is
unavailing. Topacio's action for quieting of title was not given merit for the reason that
Topacio failed to meet one of the requirements for quieting of title as set forth by law and
jurisprudence, to wit:
In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, two requisites must concur: (1) the
plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title 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.

G.R. No. 227894. July 05, 2017

JOSE S. OCAMPO, PETITIONER, VS. RICARDO[1] S. OCAMPO, SR., RESPONDENT.

In the recent case of Pontigon v. Sanchez, We explained thus:

Under the Torrens System as enshrined in P.D. No. 1529, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued become incontrovertible upon the expiration of one (1) year from
the date of entry of the decree of registration, without prejudice to an action for damages
against the applicant or any person responsible for the fraud. However, actions for
reconveyance based on implied trusts may be allowed beyond the one-year period. As
elucidated in Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr.:
[N]otwithstanding the irrevocability of the Torrens title already issued in the name of
another person, he can still be compelled under the law to reconvey the subject property to
the rightful owner. The property registered is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner
by the person in whose name it is registered. After all, the Torrens system was not
designed to shield and protect one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation and
thus holds title in bad faith. In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is
respected as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property, in this
case the title thereof, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another
person's name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a better right. This is what
reconveyance is all about. Yet, the right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust is not absolute nor is it imprescriptible. An action for reconveyance
based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years from the
issuance of the Torrens title over the property.

Thus, an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust
prescribes in ten (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.

By way of additional exception, the Court, in a catena of cases, has permitted the filing of an
action for reconveyance despite the lapse of more than ten (10) years from the issuance of
title. The common denominator of these cases is that the plaintiffs therein were in actual
possession of the disputed land, converting the action from reconveyance of property into
one for quieting of title. Imprescriptibility is accorded to cases for quieting of title since the
plaintiff has the right to wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned
before initiating an action to vindicate his right.
Given the falsity of the ESW, it becomes apparent that petitioner obtained the registration
through fraud. This wrongful registration gives occasion to the creation of an implied or
constructive trust under Article 1456 of the New Civil Code.[29] An action for
reconveyance based on an implied trust generally prescribes in ten years. However, if the
plaintiff remains in possession of the property, the prescriptive period to recover title of
possession does not run against him. In such case, his action is deemed in the nature of a
quieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible.

In the case before us, the certificate of title over the subject property was issued on
November 24, 1970. Yet, the complaint for partition and annulment of the title was only
filed on July 1, 1992, more than twenty (20) years since the assailed title was issued.
Respondent's complaint before the RTC would have been barred by prescription. However,
based on respondent's submission before the trial court, both petitioner and respondent
were residing at the subject property at the time the complaint was filed. The complaint
states:

1) That Plaintiff is of legal age, married, Filipino and presently residing at 2227 Romblon
St., G. Tuazon, Sampaloc, Manila; while defendant is likewise of legal age, married,
Filipino and residing at 2227 Romblon St., G. Tuazon, Sampaloc, Manila, where he may
be served with summons and other processes of this Honorable Court;
This was unqualifiedly admitted by petitioner in his Amended Answer and no denial was
interposed therefrom.Petitioner's failure to refute respondent's possession of the subject
property may be deemed as a judicial admission. A party may make judicial admissions in
(a) the pleadings, (b) during the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding. A judicial admission
conclusively binds the party making it and he cannot thereafter take a position
contradictory to or inconsistent with his pleadings. Acts or facts admitted do not require
proof and cannot be contradicted, unless it is shown that the admission was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

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:

x x x 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." (Emphasis in the original.)
In our jurisdiction, the remedy is governed by Article 476 and 477 of the Civil Code, which
state:

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.

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.

From the foregoing provisions, we reiterate the rule that for an action to quiet title to
prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (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.

x x x x

A cloud on a 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.
102822 and uphold the parties' co-ownership was proper.
https://saklawph.com/what-is-quieting-of-title/
What is the legal basis for an action of quieting of title?

The remedy of quieting of title is governed by Article 476 and 477 of the Civil Code, which
state:

“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.

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.”

What are the requisites of an action to quiet title?

An action to quiet title has two indispensable requisites, namely: “(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.” (Spouses Caldito v. Obado, G.R. No. 181596,
January 30, 2017)

What is the the meaning of “title”?

The first requisite is based on Article 477 of the Civil Code which requires that the plaintiff
must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject
matter of the action. “Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means
beneficial ownership, meaning a title derived through a valid contract or relation, and
based on recognized equitable principles; the right in the party, to whom it belongs, to have
the legal title transferred to him.” (Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 9,
2016)

What is the subject of an action for quieting of title?

The concept of a cause of action in ordinary civil actions does not apply to quieting of title.
In declaratory relief, the subject-matter is a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance. The issue is the validity or
construction of these documents. The relief sought is the declaration of the petitioner’s
rights and duties thereunder. Being in the nature of declaratory relief, this special civil
action presupposes that there has yet been no breach or violation of the instruments
involved.

In an action for quieting of title, the subject matter is the title sought to have quieted. “Title”
is not limited to the certificate of registration under the Torrens System (i.e., OCT or TCT).
Pursuant to Article 477 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to,
or interest in, the real property subject of the action for quieting of title. The plaintiff need
not even be in possession of the property. (Republic v. Mangotara, G.R. Nos. 170375,
170505, 173355-56, 173401, 17356-64, 178779 & 178894, July 7, 2010)
When is there a “cloud on a title”?

“A cloud on a title exists when: (a) there is an instrument (deed, or contract) or record or
claim or encumbrance or proceeding; (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; and (d) and may be prejudicial to the
title.” (Heirs of Tappa v. Heirs of Bacud, G.R. No. 187633, April 4, 2016)

Who may file an action for quieting of title?

“Generally, the registered owner of a property is the proper party to bring an action to
quiet title. However, it has been held that this remedy may also be availed of by a person
other than the registered owner because, in [Article 476 of the Civil Code], ‘title’ does not
necessarily refer to the original or transfer certificate of title.  Thus, lack of an actual
certificate of title to a property does not necessarily bar an action to quiet title.” (Spouses
Portic v. Cristobal, G.R. No. 156171, April 22, 2005)

What is the prescriptive period for an action to quiet title?

“There is no prescription when in an action for reconveyance, the claimant is in actual

possession of the property because this in effect is an action for quieting of title:

‘[S]ince if a person claiming to be the owner thereof 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. The reason for this is that one who is
in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the
reason for the rule being, that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to
seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim
of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is
in possession.'”  (Philippine National Bank v. Jumamoy, G.R. No. 169901, August 3, 2011,
670 PHIL 472-484)

Under what rule is an action for quieting of title filed?

An action for quieting of title is a special proceeding, specifically governed by Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court on declaratory relief and similar remedies. Actions for declaratory relief and
other similar remedies are distinguished from ordinary civil actions because in declaratory
relief, the subject-matter is a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute,
executive order or regulation, or ordinance. The issue is the validity or construction of
these documents. The relief sought is the declaration of the petitioner’s rights and duties
thereunder. (Republic v. Mangotara, G.R. Nos. 170375, 170505, 173355-56, 173401,
17356-64, 178779 & 178894, July 7, 2010)

“An action to quiet title or remove the clouds over the title is a special civil action governed
by the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. Specifically, an action
for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity. The
competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other
claimants, not only to put 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.” (Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834,
November 9, 2016)

How is an action to quiet title different from an action for reconveyance?

An action for reconveyance is based on Section 55 of Act No. 496, otherwise known as the
Land Registration Act, as amended, which states “[t]hat in all cases of registration procured
by fraud the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to
such fraud, without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a
certificate of title.” (Republic v. Mangotara, G.R. Nos. 170375, 170505, 173355-56, 173401,
17356-64, 178779 & 178894, July 7, 2010)
The concept of a cause of action in ordinary civil actions does not apply to declaratory relief
as this special civil action presupposes that there has been no breach or violation of the
instruments involved. Consequently, unlike other judgments, the judgment in an action for
declaratory relief does not essentially entail any executional process as the only relief to be
properly granted therein is a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties under the
instrument, although some exceptions have been recognized under certain
situations. (Republic v. Mangotara, G.R. Nos. 170375, 170505, 173355-56, 173401, 17356-
64, 178779 & 178894, July 7, 2010)