PINGOL V.

COURT OF APPEALS
A vendee in an oral contract to convey land who had made part payment thereof, entered upon
the land and had made valuable improvements thereon is entitled to bring suit to clear his title
against the vendor who had refused to transfer the title to him. It is not necessary that the
vendee should have an absolute title, an equitable title being sufficient to clothe him with
personality to bring an action to quiet title.
FACTS:
In 1969, Pingol, the owner of a lot (Lot No. 3223) in Caloocan City, executed a DEED OF
ABSOLUTE SALE OF ONE-HALF OF AN UNDIVIDED PORTION OF [his] PARCEL OF LAND
in favor of Donasco (private respondent), payable in 6 years.
In 1984, Donasco died and was only able to pay P8,369 plus P2,000 downpayment, leaving a
balance of P10,161. The heirs of Donasco remained in possession of such lot and offered to
settle the balance with Pingol. However, Pingol refused to accept the offer and demanded a
larger amount. Thus, the heirs of Donasco filed an action for specific performance (with Prayer
for Writ of Prelim. Injunction, because Pingol were encroaching upon Donascos lot). Pingol
averred that the sale and transfer of title was conditional upon the full payment of Donasco
(contract to sell, not contract of sale). With Donascos breach of the contract in 1976 and death
in 1984, the sale was deemed cancelled, and the heirs continuous occupancy was only being
tolerated by Pingol.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Pingol can refuse to transfer title to Donasco
(2) Whether or not Donasco has the right to quiet title
RULING:
(1) No. The contract between Pingol and Donasco is a contract of sale and not a contract to sell.
The acts of the parties, contemporaneous and subsequent to the contract, clearly show that the
parties intended an absolute deed of sale; the ownership of the lot was transferred to the
Donasco upon its actual (upon Donascos possession and construction of the house) and
constructive delivery (upon execution of the contract). The delivery of the lot divested Pingol of
his ownership and he cannot recover the title unless the contract is resolved or rescinded under
Art. 1592 of NCC. It states that the vendee may pay even after the expiration of the period
stipulated as long as no demand for rescission has been made upon him either judicially or by
notarial act. Pingol neither did so. Hence, Donasco has equitable title over the property.
(2) Although the complaint filed by the Donascos was an action for specific performance, it was
actually an action to quiet title. A cloud has been cast on the title, since despite the fact that the
title had been transferred to them by the execution of the deed of sale and the delivery of the
object of the contract, Pingol adamantly refused to accept the payment by Donascos and
insisted that they no longer had the obligation to transfer the title.
Donasco, who had made partial payments and improvements upon the property, is entitled to
bring suit to clear his title against Pingol who refused to transfer title to him. It is not necessary
that Donasco should have an absolute title, an equitable title being sufficient to clothe him with
personality to bring an action to quiet title.
Prescription cannot also be invoked against the Donascos because an action to quiet title to
property in ONEs POSSESSION is imprescriptible.

Heirs of OLVIGA vs. CA and Heirs of GLOR

Pureza applied for a homestead application (lot 13), but before the application was
acted upon he transferred his rights to Cornelia Glor. The transfer was also not acted
upon. In 1967, Olviga obtained a title to Lot 13 in a cadastral proceeding in farud of
Pureza's rights and his transferee Glor. Olviga's father did not mention that there was
a survey in the name of Pureza and that Glor occupied the Lot 13. Glor did not know
about the proceeding until 1988. Glor and her heirs sued the Olvigas for reconveyance
of the land.
No, it does not prescribe. "If a person claiming to be the owner
thereof is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which
in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe."
Titong vs. Court of Appeals
An action for quieting of title was filed by petitioner Mario Titong. He claims that on 3
separate occasions, private respondents, Victorico and Angeles Laurio, with their hired
labourers, forcibly entered a portion of the land containing an area of 2 hectares, and
began plowing the same under the pretext of ownership.
a claimant must show that there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding which constitutes or casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon the
owner's title to or interest in real property. The ground or reason for filing a complaint
for quieting of title must therefore be an "instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding." Petitioner merely alleged that the defendants (respondents), together
with their hired labourers and without legal justification forcibly entered the southern
portion of the disputed land and plowed the same. Dismissed
Pingol v CA
Pingol is the owner of a lot in Caloocan. He sold 1/2 to Francisco Donasco for
P20,530, and the latter immediately took possession of the lot and constructed his
house there. Upon Donasco's death, he had already paid P8,369 and the P2,000
downpayment. heirs of Donasco filed an action for "Specific performance and
damages" against the spouses. They allege that they offered to pay the balance, but
the Sps rejected it.
Pingol spouses allege that the action, being based on written contract, is barred by
statute of limitations as the action was brought more than 10 years from the time when
the Donascos could have demanded performance. Such a view is WRONG! The SC
held that although Donascos complaint was denominated as one for "specific
performance", it is in effect an action to quiet title, which does not prescribe. As an
owner of the property, he has continuing right to invoke a court of equity to remove a
cloud that is a continuing menace to his title.
PORTIC vs. CRISTOBAL
Sps Alcantara sold the property (land w/ 3-door apartment) to the Spouses PORTIC
with assumption of mortgage in favor of SSS. They defaulted, thus SSS foreclosed.
Before the redemption period ended. Sps Portic sold the lot to Cristobal for
downpayment and balance. Failure will void the sale. Sps. Alcantara later sold the
property to Cristobal. Cristobal mortgaged the lot to secure her debt with Sps Portic.
She paid the debt with SSS. TCT issued in favor of Cristobal Portic later demanded
payment of the balance.
Portics retained ownership over the property; Having title does not make one's claim
indefeasible
REMEDY of quieting of title may be availed of by a person OTHER THAN a registered
owner because "title" in CC 476 does not necessarily mean the original or transfer
certificate of title. Portics have NOT turned over the title to their property because
transfer of ownership in favor of Cristobal WAS SUBJECT TO THE SUSPENSIVE
CONDITION stipulated in Par. 3 of the MoA - While balance of P155,000 has not been
fully paid, first party owners retain ownership of the land (contract to sell)