Heirs of Tappa vs Heirs of Bacud

G.R. No. 187633

Date: 4 April 2016
Ponente: Jardeleza
Doctrine: For an action to quiet title to prosper, there are two indispensable requisites:
1) that the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an 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 or validity or legal efficacy.

Facts:
On 9 September 1999, Delfin and Maria Tappa filed a complaint for Quieting of Title
against Bacud, Calabazaron and Malupeng. The Spouses Tappa alleged that they were
the registered owner over the parcel of land, which Delfin allegedly inherited from his
father, Lorenzo, and that Lorenzo and Delfin were in open, continuous, notirous,
exclusive possession of the lot since time immemorial.

Bacud, Calabazaron and Malupeng claimed that the original owner of the lot was
Genaro Tappa, who had two children, Lorenzo and Irene. Upon Genero’s death,k the
property passed on to Lorenzo and Irene by operation of law and they became the co-
owners of the property, with each owning 10,939 square meters as their respective
shares. They also contend that Lorenzo had three children, Delfin, Primitiva and
Fermina; while Irene’s heirs were Demeteria, Juanita, Pantaleon and Bacud.

The respondents presented before the RTC a joint affidavit signed by Delfin and his
sisters stating that Genaro owned the lot, and that half was owned by Lorenzo but the
whole property was declared as his only for taxation purposes.

Calabazaron claimed he became the owner of 2,520 square meters by virtue of a Deed
of Sale executed in his favour; one by Demeteria, and the other by Juanita. Since then,
he has been in physical possession and has been paying taxes.

Malupeng claims that a portion was sold to him by Pantaleon. He has been in
possession since and has been paying real property taxes.

The RTC ruled in favour of the petitioners and ordered the defendants to vacate the
property.

The CA reversed the RTC ruling that the possession of the defendants had ripened into
ownership through acquisitive prescription, as they had been continuously occupying
portions of it since 1963 (or occupying it for more than 30 years).
Issue: What is an action to Quiet Title?

Ratio:
An action for Quieting of Title is an action to secure 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 or hostile
claim. The purpose is to remove every cloud of doubt over the property.

For an action to quiet title to prosper, there are two indispensable requisites: 1) that the
plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an 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 or validity or legal efficacy.

Issue: Is a free patent over private land valid?

Ratio: No

It is an established rule that a free patent issued over private land is null and void and
produces no legal effects whatsoever. Private ownership that can be proven by a clear
showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession by present or
previous occupants is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land,
because the Public Land Act applies only to lands of the public domain.

Issue: Was the land susceptible to the coverage of a free patent?

Ratio: No
The claim of the petitioners over the lot is by virtue of a free patent; by the time that they
had applied for the free patent, the lot already became private land by virtue of the
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession by respondents. Consequently,
the lot was removed from the coverage of the Public Land Act.

The respondents were able to show possession of the Tappa family even before the
execution of the 1963 Affidavit. Moreover, Delfin himself was born on the lot in 1934.
Records also show that the property was declared for taxation purposes as early as
1949, and that there were real property taxes paid from 1961 to 2000.

While tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are good indicia
of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying
taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession; they at least
prove the holder has a claim of title over the property.

The petitioners also admitted in their complaint that Bacud and Malupeng started
occupying the lot sometime in 1963, while Calabazaron did the same in the 1970s. The
same complaint said that the respondents continuously occupied portions of the land
since 1963.

Because of all these circumstances that show open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the lot, the property was segregated from the
public domain. By the time that the patent and the certificate of title were issued in 1992,
the spouses Tappa and their predecessors-in-interest were already in possession, at
least to half of the lot since 1934; respondents over the other half since 1963.

Issue: Whether or not the action to Quiet Title will succeed

Ratio: No
In an action to quiet title, legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title
means beneficial ownership. Because of the circumstances of the case, the free patent
and the certificate of title issued to the Spouses Tappa could not be the source of their
legal title.

Moreover, although the 1963 Affidavit exists, this is not enough to cast a cloud on the
Spouses Tappa’s title, as it was not shown to be invalid or ineffective against the
Spouses Tappa’s rights to the property.

A cloud on a title exists when:

1) there is an instrument or record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding
2) which is apparently valid or effective
3) but is in fact invalid, and
4) may be prejudicial to the title.

The 1963 Affidavit is an instrument but it was not proven to be invalid or barred by
extinctive prescription. There was an allegation of force or intimidation in the execution
but this was not substantiated.