GASPAR CALACALA ET AL, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS ET AL. GR NO.

154415, JULY 28, 2005

FACTS: The petitioners, represented by the spouses Camilo Calacala and Conchita Calacala, and their legal heirs,
brought forth a petition for review on certiorari. The matter involved a parcel of land owned by the Calacalas,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-21204. This land was offered as a property bond in a criminal case before
the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan. However, due to the accused's failure to appear in court, the bond was
forfeited, and the CFI rendered judgment against the bond in favor of the government.

Consequently, a Writ of Execution was issued, leading to the sale of the land at a public auction to the
Republic of the Philippines for ₱3,500. The Certificate of Sale was duly registered, providing the Calacalas with a one-
year redemption period, which they failed to exercise. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the Calacalas filed a complaint
for Quieting of Title and Cancellation of Encumbrance on TCT No. T-21204 against the Republic and Sheriff Juan C.
Marquez.

However, the trial court granted the Republic's motion to dismiss, prompting the petitioners to challenge this
decision. The Supreme Court, upon review, affirmed the trial court's dismissal. It held that for an action for quieting
of title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur: the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable title to the
property subject to the action, and the alleged cloud on the title must be shown to be invalid.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court's dismissal of petitioners' complaint for Quieting of Title was proper.

HELD: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. It ruled that for an action for quieting of
title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur: the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable title to the
property subject to the action, and the alleged cloud on the title must be shown to be invalid. In this case, petitioners
failed to establish either requisite. Petitioners did not possess legal title over the property due to their failure to
redeem it within the one-year redemption period. The Republic's failure to execute certain actions within ten years
from the registration of the Certificate of Sale did not restore rights to the Calacalas. The Sheriff's Certificate of Sale,
duly registered, was not contested by petitioners, failing to invalidate it. The petition was denied, and the trial court's
decision was affirmed.