Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ET.
AL.
vs.
PATRICIA,
INC;
GR
NO.
195834;
November
9,
2016;
Bersamin
The
joinder
of
the
action
for
injunction
and
the
action
to
quiet
title
was
disallowed
by
the
Rules
of
Court
(Sec.
5
(b),
Rule
63
-
The
joinder
shall
not
include
special
civil
FACTS:
actions
or
actions
governed
by
special
rules).
Thus,
RTC
should
have
severed
the
causes
of
action
either
upon
motion
or
motu
propio,
and
tried
them
separately,
This
is
an
action
for
injunction
and
quieting
of
title
to
determine
who
owns
assuming
it
had
jurisdiction
based
on
Section
6,
Rule
2
of
the
Rules
of
Court
the
property
occupied
by
the
plaintiffs
and
intervenor,
Ciriano
Mijares.
(Misjoinder
of
causes
of
action
-
not
a
ground
for
dismissal
of
an
action).
Additionally,
to
prevent
Patricia
Inc.,
from
evicting
the
plaintiffs
from
their
respective
improvements
along
Juan
Luna
St.,
plaintiffs
applied
for
a
Moreover,
petitioners
did
not
show
that
they
were
real
parties
in
interest
to
demand
preliminary
injunction
in
their
complaint
pending
the
quieting
of
title
on
the
either
injunction
or
quieting
of
title.
Hence,
the
dismissal
of
this
cause
of
action
was
merits.
warranted.
Complaint-in-intervention
-
filed
by
the
City
of
Manila
as
owner
of
the
land
occupied
by
the
plaintiffs
and
by
Mijares
as
they
were
similarly
situated
as
An
action
to
quiet
title
or
remove
the
clouds
over
the
title
is
a
special
civil
action.
The
the
other
plaintiffs.
competent
court
is
tasked
to
determine
the
respective
rights
of
the
complainant
and
The
preliminary
injunction
was
granted.
All
parties
agreed
and
admitted
in
other
claimants,
not
only
to
put
things
in
their
proper
place,
to
make
the
one
who
evidence
by
stipulation
as
to
the
authenticity
of
the
documents.
Hence,
has
no
rights
to
said
immovable
respect
and
not
to
disturb
the
other,
but
also
for
the
since
the
TCTs
of
both
Patricia,
Inc.
and
the
City
of
Manila
are
admitted
as
benefit
of
both.
The
two
indispensable
requisites
must
concur,
namely:
(1)
plaintiff
genuine,
the
question
now
is:
Where
are
the
boundaries
based
on
the
or
complainant
has
a
legal
or
an
equitable
title
to
or
interest
in
the
real
property
description
in
the
respective
titles?
subject
of
the
action;
and
(2)
the
deed,
claim,
encumbrance,
or
proceeding
claimed
To
resolve
the
above
question,
the
RTC
appointed
3
geodetic
engineers
as
to
be
casting
cloud
on
his
title
must
be
shown
to
be
in
fact
invalid
or
inoperative
commissioners.
These
commissioners
ultimately
submitted
their
reports.
despite
its
prima
facie
appearance
of
validity
or
legal
efficacy.
RTC:
It
ruled
in
favor
of
the
petitioners
and
against
Patricia,
Inc.,
permanently
Legal
title
denotes
registered
ownership,
while
equitable
title
means
beneficial
enjoining
the
latter
from
doing
any
act
that
would
evict
the
former
from
their
ownership
(title
derived
through
a
valid
contract
or
relation).
To
determine
whether
respective
premises
and
collecting
any
rentals
from
them.
It
sided
with
two
of
the
the
petitioners
as
plaintiffs
had
the
requisite
interest
to
bring
the
suit,
a
resort
to
the
commissioners
who
had
found
that
the
land
belonged
to
the
City
of
Manila.
allegations
of
the
complaint
is
necessary.
CA:
It
reversed
the
RTCs
decision
and
dismissed
the
complaint.
It
declared
that
the
Based
on
the
complaint,
the
petitioners
did
not
claim
ownership
of
the
land
itself,
petitioners
were
without
the
necessary
interest,
either
legal
or
equitable
title
to
and
did
not
show
their
authority
or
other
legal
basis
on
which
they
had
anchored
maintain
a
suit
for
quieting
of
title.
It
also
opined
that
the
RTC
should
have
conducted
their
alleged
lawful
occupation
and
superior
possession
of
the
property.
They
also
hearings
on
the
reports
of
the
commissioners;
ruled
as
highly
improper
the
contended
that
their
continued
possession
had
been
for
more
than
30
years;
build
adjudication
of
the
boundary
dispute
in
an
action
for
quieting
of
title.
their
houses
in
good
faith
and
that
the
area
had
been
declared
an
Area
for
Priority
Development
(PD
1517).
ISSUE:
WON
THE
PETITIONERS
HAD
THE
SUFFICIENT
INTEREST
TO
BRING
THE
SUIT
FOR
QUIETING
OF
TITLE
However,
none
of
the
above
reasons
validly
clothed
them
with
the
necessary
interest
to
maintain
the
action
for
quieting
of
title.
For
example,
the
APD
is
only
granted
to
HELD:
NO.
the
occupants
of
APDs
the
right
of
first
refusal,
but
such
grant
was
true
only
if
and
when
the
owner
of
the
property
decided
to
sell
the
property.
Only
then
would
the
right
of
first
refusal
accrue.
Consequently,
the
right
of
first
refusal
remained
contingent,
and
was
for
that
reason
insufficient
to
vest
any
title,
legal
or
equitable,
BILAG
VS.
AY-AY;
GR
NO.
189950;
APRIL
24,2017;
PERLAS-BERNABE
in
the
petitioners.
FACTS:
The
CAs
adverse
judgment
dismissing
their
complaint
as
far
as
the
action
to
quiet
title
was
concerned
was
correct.
The
main
requirement
for
the
action
to
be
brought
This
case
stemmed
from
a
complaint
for
quieting
of
title
with
prayer
for
is
that
there
is
a
deed,
claim,
encumbrance,
or
proceeding
casting
cloud
on
the
preliminary
injunction
filed
by
the
respondents
(Estela
Ay-ay,
Andres
Acop,
plaintiffs
title
that
is
alleged
and
shown
to
be
in
fact
invalid
or
inoperative
despite
Felicitas
Ap-ap,
Sergio
Ap-ap,
John
Napoleon
Ramirez
and
Ma.
Teresa
its
prima
facie
appearance
of
validity
or
legal
efficacy,
the
eliminates
the
existence
Ramirez)
against
the
petitioners
(Bernadette
Bilag,
Erlinda
Bilag-Santillan,
of
the
requirement.
Dixon
Bilag,
Reynaldo
Suello,
Heirs
of
Lourdes
Bilag,
Heirs
of
Leticia
Bilag-
Hanaoka,
and
Heirs
of
Nellie
Bilag)
before
the
RTC.
Their
admission
of
the
genuiness
and
authenticity
of
Patricia,
Inc.,s
title
negated
the
o Respondents
alleged
that
Iloc
Bilag
(petitioners
predecessor-in-
existence
of
such
deed,
instrument,
encumbrance
or
proceeding
that
was
invalid,
interest),
sold
to
them
separately
various
portions
of
a
159,
and
thus
the
action
must
necessarily
fail.
496sqms
parcel
of
land
situated
at
Sition
Benin,
Baguio
City
(subject
land)
and
that
they
registered
the
corresponding
Deeds
Furthermore,
the
petitioners
did
not
have
a
cause
of
action
for
injunction.
The
of
Sale
with
the
RD
of
Baguio
City.
petitioners
must
prove
the
existence
of
a
right
to
be
protected.
The
records
show,
o Respondents
asserted
that
Iloc
not
onl
acknowledged
full
payment
however,
that
they
did
not
have
any
tight
to
be
protected
because
they
had
and
guaranteed
that
his
heirs,
successors-in-interest,
and
established
only
the
existence
of
the
boundary
dispute
between
Patricia,
Inc.,
if
any,
executors
are
to
be
bound
by
such
sales,
but
he
also
caused
the
would
give
rise
to
the
right
of
action
in
favor
of
the
City
of
Manila
only.
The
dispute
subject
lands
to
be
removed
from
the
Ancestral
Land
Claims.
did
not
concern
the
petitioners
at
all.
o They
also
alleged
that
they
have
been
in
continuous
possession
of
the
said
lands
since
1976
when
they
were
delivered
to
them
and
Moreover,
the
boundary
dispute
should
not
be
litigated
in
an
action
for
quieting
of
that
they
have
already
introduced
various
improvements
thereon.
title
due
to
the
limited
scope
of
action.
The
action
for
quieting
of
title
is
a
tool
However,
petitioners
refused
to
honor
the
foregoing
sales
by
asserting
their
specifically
used
to
remove
of
any
cloud
upon,
doubt,
or
uncertainty
affecting
title
adverse
rights
on
the
subject
lands.
to
real
property;
it
should
not
be
used
for
any
other
purpose.
Second,
the
boundary
o They
continued
to
harass
respondents,
and
even
threatened
to
dispute
would
essentially
seek
to
alter
or
modify
either
the
Torrens
title
of
the
City
demolish
their
improvements
and
dispossess
them
thereof.
of
Manila
or
that
of
Patricia
but
any
alteration
or
medication
either
way
should
be
o Hence,
the
filed
the
instant
complaint
to
quiet
their
respective
initiated
only
by
direct
proceedings,
not
as
an
issue
incidentally
raised
by
the
parties
titles
over
the
subject
lands
and
remove
the
cloud
cast
upon
their
herein.
ownership
as
a
result
of
petitioners
refusal
to
recognize
the
sales.
Petitioners
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
on
the
grounds
of
lack
of
jurisdiction,
To
allow
the
boundary
dispute
to
be
litigated
in
the
action
for
quieting
of
title
would
prescription/laches/estoppel,
and
res
judicata.
invalidate
Section
48
of
the
Property
Registration
Decree
by
virtue
of
its
prohibition
o Petitioners
averred
that
the
subject
lands
are
untitled,
against
collateral
attacks
on
Torrens
Title.
A
collateral
attack
takes
place
when,
in
unregistered,
and
form
part
of
the
Baguio
Townsite
Reservation
another
action
to
obtain
a
different
relief,
the
certificate
of
title
is
assailed
as
an
which
were
long
classified
as
lands
of
public
domain.
Hence,
RTC
incident
in
said
action.
This
is
exactly
what
the
petitioners
sought
to
do
herein,
has
no
jurisdiction
over
the
case
as
it
is
the
Land
Management
seeking
to
modify
or
otherwise
cancel
Patricia,
Inc.
title.
Bureau
which
is
vested
with
the
authority
to
determine
the
issues
of
ownership
over
unregistered
public
lands.
o Petitioners
argued
that
it
is
only
now,
or
more
than
27
years
from
the
execution
of
the
Deeds
of
Sale,
that
respondents
seek
to
enforce
said
Deeds;
thus
the
action
is
already
barred
by
CA
notably
omitted
from
its
discussion
the
first
ground
relied
upon
by
petitioners,
prescription
and/or
laches.
which
is
lack
of
jurisdiction.
o It
was
pointed
out
that
the
respondents
had
already
filed
a
complaint
against
them
for
injunction
and
damages
before
RTC
It
was
well-settled
that
jurisdiction
is
defined
as
the
power
and
authority
of
a
court
Baguio
City
wherein
they
principally
asserted
their
ownership
over
to
hear,
try
and
decide
a
case.
Hence,
it
is
important
that
a
court
or
tribunal
should
the
subject
lands.
However,
RTC
dismissed
the
case
for
lack
of
first
determine
whether
or
not
it
has
jurisdiction
over
the
subject
matter
presented
merit
on
the
ground
of
respondents
failure
to
show
convincing
before
it,
considering
that
any
act
that
it
performs
without
jurisdiction
shall
be
null
proof
of
ownership
over
the
same,
which
was
then
affirmed
by
the
and
void,
and
without
any
binding
legal
effects.
CA
on
appeal.
Hence,
petitioners
contended
that
due
to
the
final
and
executory
ruling,
they
are
already
barred
by
res
judicata.
Thus,
on
the
issue
of
jurisdiction,
a
review
of
the
records
shows
that
the
subject
lands
form
part
of
a
159,
496sqm
situated
at
Sitio
Benin,
Baguio
City.
Hence,
such
parcel
RTC:
It
ruled
in
favor
of
the
petitioner
and
consequently
ordered
the
dismissal
on
the
of
land
forms
part
of
the
Baguio
Townsite
Reservation,
a
portion
of
which,
or
146,
following
grounds:
no
authority
to
do
so;
the
deeds
of
sale
in
respondents
favor
428
sqm,
was
awarded
to
Iloc
due
to
the
reopening
of
Civil
Reservation
Case
no.
1,
could
not
as
yet
be
considered
title
to
the
subject
lands,
noting
the
failure
of
as
evidenced
by
a
decision
dated
April
22,
1968.
respondents
to
perfect
their
title
or
assert
ownership
and
possession
thereof
for
the
past
27
years;
and
filing
of
the
instant
case
is
barred
by
res
judicata
considering
the
Moreover,
PD
1271
expressly
declared
that
all
orders
and
decisions
issued
by
the
CFI
final
and
executory
decision
where
respondents
similarly
sought
to
be
declared
the
Baguio
and
Benguet
in
connection
with
the
proceedings
for
the
reopening
of
Civil
owners
of
the
subject
lands.
Reservation
Case
No.
1
covering
lands
within
the
Baguio
Townsite
Reservation
are
null
and
void
and
without
force
and
effect.
It
also
provides
for
a
means
to
validate
CA:
It
set
aside
the
decision
of
the
RTC
and
set
aside
the
dismissal
of
the
case.
It
ownership
over
lands
forming
part
of
the
Baguio
Townsite
Reservation,
it
requires
remanded
the
case
to
the
court
a
quo
for
trial.
It
held
that
Civil
Case
3934-R
was
an
that
a
CTC
be
issued
on
such
lands
on
or
before
July
31,1973.
action
for
injunction
where
respondents
sought
to
enjoin
petitioners
alleged
entry
into
the
subject
lands
and
their
introduction
of
improvements
thereat;
whereas
Civil
It
this
case,
the
records
reveal
that
the
subject
lands
are
unregistered
and
untitled.
Case
5881
is
an
action
to
quiet
title
where
respondents
specifically
prayed,
inter
alia,
Clearly,
the
award
of
lots
2
and
3
which
includes
the
subject
lands,
is
covered
by
the
for
the
removal
of
the
cloud
upon
their
ownership
and
possession
of
the
subject
blanket
nullification
provided
under
PD
1271,
and
consistently
affirmed
by
the
lands.
prevailing
case
law.
Hence,
it
is
only
reasonable
to
concluded
that
the
subject
lands
should
be
properly
classified
as
lands
of
the
public
domain
as
well.
It
concluded
that
while
these
case
may
involve
the
same
properties,
the
nature
of
the
action
differs;
hence,
res
judicata
is
not
a
bar
to
the
present
suit.
With
regard
to
Therefore,
the
petitioners
correctly
argued
that
it
is
the
Director
of
Lands
who
has
the
issue
of
laches,
prescription
or
estoppel,
CA
pointed
out
that
in
view
of
the
authority
to
award
their
ownership.
Thus,
the
RTC
correctly
recognized
its
lack
respondents
allegation
that
they
have
been
in
possession
of
the
subject
lands
since
of
power
or
authority
to
hear
and
resolve
respondents
action
for
quieting
of
title.
1976,
their
action
to
quiet
title
is
imprescriptible.
Thus,
to
reiterate,
when
a
court
has
no
jurisdiction
over
the
subject
matter,
the
only
power
it
has
is
to
dismiss
the
action,
as
any
act
it
performs
without
jurisdiction
is
null
ISSUE:
WON
CA
CORRECTLY
SET
ASIDE
THE
DISMISSAL
OF
CIVIL
CASE
5881-R.
and
void,
and
without
any
binding
legal
effects.
HELD:
NO.
It
must
be
stressed
that
in
setting
aside
the
order
of
dismissal
of
civil
case
5881-R
due
to
the
inapplicability
of
the
grounds
of
res
judicata
and
prescription/laches,
the
SPOUSES
ALCANTARA
VS.
SPOUSES
FLORANTE
AND
ZENAIDA
ANANIAS,
ET.
AL.;
GR
of
ownership
over
Lot
no.
16932,
and
not
Lot
No.
16931.
It
declared
that
Asuncio
NO.
200204;
APRIL
25,2017;
SERENO
Alimon
was
not
a
possessor
or
cultivator
of
the
subject
land,
a
fact
that
voided
the
Free
Patent
issued
to
her,
as
well
as
the
resulting
OCT
and
TCT.
It
also
held
that
Elvira
FACTS:
Alcantara
was
not
a
legal
heir
of
Asuncion
Alimon.
Spouses
Alcantara
filed
before
the
RTC
a
complaint
against
spouses
Belen
ISSUE:
WON
A
CERTIFICATE
OF
TITLE
MAY
BE
SUFFICIENTLY
DEFEATED
BY
TAX
for
the
quieting
of
title,
reconveyance
of
possession,
and
accounting
of
DECLARATIONS
AND
DEEDS
OF
SALE.
harvest
with
damages.
o Petitioners
argued
that
their
neighbors,
respondents
herein,
had
HELD:
NO.
extended
the
latters
possession
up
to
the
titled
to
spouses
Alcantara,
and
usurped
the
harvests
therefrom.
The
Kasulatan
ng
Bilihang
Tuluyan
ng
Lupa
and
the
Tax
Declaration
submitted
by
o They
claimed
that
they
were
the
registered
owners
of
Lot
16932
respondents
pertained
to
the
lot
in
litigation
and
based
on
these
documents,
the
CA
(3,887sqm)
planted
with
trees.
They
traced
their
ownership
of
the
adjudged
sps.
Belen
the
lawful
owners
of
Lot
no.
16931.
However,
these
exhibits
do
property
to
her
inheritance
from
her
mother,
Asuncion
Alimon.
By
not
involve
Lot
16932.
As
correctly
assessed
by
the
RTC,
the
parcel
of
land
described
virtue
of
an
Affidavit
of
Self-Adjudication,
Free
Patent,
and
OCT
in
the
Kasulatan
ng
Bilihang
Tuluyan
ng
Lupa
does
not
respond
to
the
description
of
were
cancelled
and
a
TCT
was
issued
in
the
name
of
Elvira
Lot
no.
16932
as
contained
in
the
realtys
certificate
of
title
claimed
by
petitioners.
Alcantara.
On
the
strength
of
a
sales
agreement
called
Kasulatan
ng
Bilihang
Tuluyan
Hence,
based
on
the
excerpts,
it
clearly
shows
that
the
lot
claimed
by
petitioners
is
ng
Lupa,
respondents
countered
the
petitioners
claim
over
the
property.
not
the
property
conveyed
in
the
deed
of
sale
presented
by
respondents.
Aside
from
They
alleged
that
they
bought
the
property
from
its
prior
owners
and
even
their
difference
in
size,
the
two
properties
have
distinctive
boundaries.
Therefore,
though
they
did
not
have
CTC
over
the
property,
they
supported
their
claim
on
the
face
of
the
documents,
CA
incorrectly
ruled
that
these
pertained
to
Lot
No.
of
ownership
with
various
Tax
Declarations
under
the
name
of
their
16932.
Moreover,
the
Tax
Declarations
were
likewise
erroneous,
tracing
the
history
predecessors-in-interest.
of
the
same,
none
of
these
refers
to
Lot
no.
16932.
o Respondents
also
attacked
the
OCT
of
Asuncion
Alimon.
They
claimed
that
fraud
attended
the
issuance
of
a
Free
Patent
to
her,
The
last
three
Tax
Declarations
were
already
registered
to
Spouses
Belen.
Under
considering
that
the
Belens
had
occupied
the
property
ever
since.
these
documents,
the
information
is
different
from
those
prescribed
in
TCT
T-36252.
According
to
them,
they
already
protested
her
title
still
pending
Hence,
the
RTC
accurately
ruled
that
the
evidence
of
respondents
consisting
of
tax
before
the
CENRO
of
DENR.
declarations
shows
that
what
is
tax
declared
in
their
names
is
Lot
16931,
not
Lot
16932.
RTC:
It
ruled
in
favor
of
the
petitioners.
It
gave
more
weight
to
the
CTC
and
Tax
Declarations
presented
by
petitioners,
declaring
them
the
absolute
owners
of
Lot
Furthermore,
based
on
established
jurisprudence,
it
was
ruled
that
the
certificate
of
no.
16932.
It
further
dislodged
the
use
of
the
Tax
Declarations
registered
under
the
title
of
petitioners
is
an
absolute
and
indefeasible
evidence
of
their
ownership
of
the
names
of
Sps.
Belen
and
their
predecessors-in-interest,
because
these
documents
property.
The
irrelevant
Tax
Declarations
of
Sps.
Belen
cannot
defeat
TCT
of
Sps.
did
not
have
the
technical
description
of
the
land
and
its
boundaries.
Further,
RTC
Alcantara,
as
it
is
binding
and
conclusive
upon
the
whole
world.
went
to
conclude
that
respondents
were
claiming
Lot
no.
16931,
a
property
different
from
Lot
no.
16932.
Aside
from
presenting
a
CTC
to
the
claimed
property,
petitioners
submit
as
evidence
the
Tax
Declarations
registered
to
them
and
to
their
predecessors-in-interest.
These
CA:
It
declared
respondents
as
the
owners
of
Lot
16932
as
the
petitioners
failed
to
Tax
Declarations,
together
with
the
CTC
presented
by
petitioners,
support
their
show
their
legal
entitlement.
It
found
that
respondents
had
presented
their
claims
claims
over
Lot
no.
16932.
CA
incorrectly
disposed
of
the
property
in
favor
of
respondents,
considering
the
indefeasibility
of
the
Torrens
title
submitted
as
IGLESIA
NI
CRISTO
VS.
HON.
PONFERRADA
AND
HEIRS
OF
ENRIQUE
G.
SANTOS;
GR
evidence
by
petitioners.
NO.
168943;
OCTOBER
27,
2006;
CALLEJO,
SR.
Moreover,
CA
failed
to
cite
any
specific
exhibit
on
record
showing
that
Asuncion
FACTS:
Alimon
did
not
possess
the
land
when
she
applied
for
the
patent.
In
effect,
it
jumped
to
conclusions
without
any
sufficient
basis
for
its
premise.
Based
on
the
Alicia,
Alfredo,
Roberto,
Enrique
and
Susan,
all
surnamed
Santos,
and
Sonia
jurisprudence,
the
courts
must
refrain
from
making
a
declaration
of
heirship
in
an
Santos-Wallin
(Heirs
of
Enrique
Santos),
filed
a
complaint
for
Quieting
of
ordinary
civil
action
because
matters
relating
to
the
rights
of
filiation
and
heirship
Title
and/or
Accion
Reinvindicatoria
before
the
RTC
of
Quezon
City
against
must
be
ventilated
in
a
special
proceeding
instituted
precisely
for
the
purpose
of
Iglesia
ni
Cristo
(INC).
determining
such
rights.
Based
on
the
foregoing,
CA
precluded
from
determining
the
Respondents
alleged
that,
during
his
lifetime,
Enrique
Santos
was
the
issue
of
filiation
in
a
proceeding
for
the
quieting
of
title
and
accion
reinvindicatoria.
owner
of
a
936-sqm
parcel
of
land
located
in
Tandang
Sora,
Quezon
City.
He
had
been
in
possession
of
the
owners
duplicate
of
said
title
and
had
Based
on
the
records,
there
is
no
allegation,
as
regards
the
parties,
a
special
been
in
continuous,
open,
adverse
and
peaceful
possession
of
the
property.
proceeding
was
instituted
but
was
finally
closed
and
terminated.
In
the
proceedings
o He
died
on
February
1970
and
was
survived
by
his
wife,
Alicia
and
before
the
RTC,
none
of
the
parties
exhaustively
presented
evidence
regarding
the
his
children.
They
took
peaceful
and
adverse
possession
of
the
issue
of
filiation.
Neither
did
the
trial
court
make
any
pronouncement
as
regards
that
property,
and
of
the
owners
duplicate
of
said
title.
issue.
Thus,
the
CA
should
not
have
adjudicated
the
status
of
Elvira
Alcantara
as
a
When
the
RD
of
Quezon
City
was
burned,
the
original
copy
of
said
title
was
legitimate
daughter
or
an
adopted
child
in
succeeding
rights
of
Asuncion
Alimon.
burned
as
well.
The
RD
had
the
title
reconstituted
based
on
the
owners
duplicate
(TCT
57272).
However,
sometime
in
1996,
the
respondents
learned
that
the
petitioners
was
claiming
ownership
over
the
property
based
on
TCT
320898,
under
the
name
of
PNB,
which
allegedly
cancelled
TCT
252070
in
the
names
of
sps.
Dela
Cruz.
o They
insisted
that
TCT
nos.
321744,
320898
and
252070
were
not
among
the
titles
issued
by
the
RD
of
Quezon
City
and
even
if
the
RD
issued
said
titles,
it
was
contrary
to
law.
Enrique
Santos,
during
his
lifetime,
and
his
heirs,
after
his
death,
never
encumbered
or
disposed
the
property.
In
1996,
plaintiffs
had
the
property
fenced
but
defendant
deprived
them
of
the
final
use
and
enjoyment
of
their
property.
Petitioners
moved
to
dismiss
plaintiffs
complaint
on
the
following
grounds:
(1)
plaintiffs
failed
to
faithfully
comply
with
the
procedural
requirements
set
forth
in
Section
5,
Rule
7
of
the
1997
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure;
(2)
the
action
(either
Quieting
of
Title
or
Accion
Reinvindicatoria)
had
prescribed,
the
same
having
been
filed
only
on
October
24,
2001
beyond
the
statutory
ten-year
period
therefor;
and
(3)
that
the
complaint
is
defective
in
many
respects.
o Petitioners
asserted
that
the
case
involved
more
than
one
respondent
but
the
verification
and
certification
against
forum
shopping
incorporated
in
the
complaint
was
signed
only
by
RTC:
It
denied
the
petitioners
motion
to
dismiss.
It
declared
that
since
Enrique
Enrique
Santos.
Although
the
complaint
alleges
that
plaintiffs
are
Santos
was
one
of
the
heirs,
his
signature
in
the
verification
and
certification
represented
by
Enrique
Santos,
there
is
no
showing
that
he
was,
constitutes
substantial
compliance
with
the
Rules.
indeed,
authorized
to
so
represent
the
other
plaintiffs
to
file
the
complaint
and
to
sign
the
verification
and
certification
of
non- CA:
It
affirmed
the
decision
of
the
RTC,
holding
that
the
RTC
did
not
commit
GADALEJ
forum
shopping.
Thus,
plaintiffs
failed
to
comply
with
Section
5,
in
denying
petitioners
motion
to
dismiss.
As
the
Court
held
in
DAR
v.
Alonzo-Legasto
Rule
7
of
the
Rules
of
Court.
and
in
Gudoy
v.
Guadalquiver,
the
certification
signed
by
one
with
respect
to
a
o Petitioners
maintained
that
the
complaint
is
defective
in
that,
property
over
which
he
shares
a
common
interest
with
the
rest
of
the
plaintiffs
although
there
is
an
allegation
that
Enrique
Santos
represents
the
(respondents
herein)
substantially
complied
with
the
Rules.
As
to
the
issue
of
other
heirs,
there
is
nothing
in
the
pleading
to
show
the
latters
prescription,
the
appellate
court
held
that
the
prescriptive
period
should
be
authority
to
that
effect;
the
complaint
fails
to
aver
with
reckoned
from
1996,
when
petitioner
claimed
ownership
and
barred
respondents
particularity
the
facts
showing
the
capacity
of
defendant
from
fencing
the
property.
corporation
to
sue
and
be
sued;
and
the
pleading
does
not
state
the
address
of
plaintiffs.
Petitioner
likewise
averred
that
the
ISSUES:
WON
THE
ACTION
FOR
QUIETING
OF
TITLE
AND/OR
ACCION
complaint
should
be
dismissed
on
the
ground
of
prescription.
It
REINVINDICATORIA
HAS
NOT
YET
PRESCRIBED.
argued
that
respondent
anchor
their
claim
on
quieting
of
title
and
considering
that
they
are
not
in
possession
of
the
land
in
question,
HELD:
YES.
their
cause
of
action
prescribed
after
ten
years.
o On
the
other
hand,
if
the
supposed
right
of
plaintiffs
is
based
on
On
the
issue
of
prescription
of
action,
petitioner
avers
that
the
action
of
respondents
accion
reinvindicatoria,
prescription
would
set
in
after
10
years
is
one
to
quiet
title
and/or
accion
reinvindicatoria,
and
that
respondents
asserted
from
dispossession.
In
both
cases,
defendant
asserts,
the
ownership
over
the
property
and
sought
the
recovery
of
possession
of
the
subject
reckoning
point
is
1984
when
defendant
acquired
TCT
No.
321744
parcel
of
land.
It
insists
that
the
very
nature
of
the
action
presupposes
that
and
possession
of
the
land
in
question.
respondents
had
not
been
in
actual
and
material
possession
of
the
property,
and
Respondents
averred
that
the
relationship
of
a
co-owner
to
the
other
co- that
it
was
petitioner
which
had
been
in
possession
of
the
property
since
1984
when
owners
is
fiduciary
in
character;
thus,
anyone
of
them
could
effectively
act
it
acquired
title
thereon.
The
action
of
respondent
prescribed
in
ten
years
from
1984
for
another
for
the
benefit
of
the
property
without
need
for
an
when
petitioner
allegedly
dispossessed
respondents,
in
accordance
with
Article
authorization.
Consequently,
Enrique
Santos
had
the
authority
to
represent
555(4)
of
the
New
Civil
Code.
the
other
heirs
as
plaintiffs
and
to
sign
the
verification
and
certification
against
forum
shopping.
On
the
issue
of
prescription,
respondents
argued
The
contention
of
petitioner
has
no
merit.
The
nature
of
an
action
is
determined
by
that
the
prescriptive
period
for
the
actions
should
be
reckoned
from
1996,
the
material
allegations
of
the
complaint
and
the
character
of
the
relief
sought
by
when
petitioners
claimed
ownership
over
the
property
and
barred
plaintiffs
plaintiff,
and
the
law
in
effect
when
the
action
was
filed
irrespective
of
whether
he
from
fencing
their
property,
not
in
1984
when
TCT
No.
321744
was
issued
is
entitled
to
all
or
only
some
of
such
relief.
As
gleaned
from
the
averments
of
the
by
the
Register
of
Deeds
in
the
name
of
defendant
as
owner.
complaint,
the
action
of
respondents
was
one
for
quieting
of
title
under
Rule
64
of
Petitioners
averred
that
absent
any
authority
from
his
co-heirs,
Enrique
the
Rules
of
Court,
in
relation
to
Article
476
of
the
New
Civil
Code.
Santos
must
implead
them
as
plaintiffs
as
they
are
indispensable
parties.
In
response,
respondent
aver
that
a
co-owner
of
a
property
can
execute
an
A
cloud
is
said
to
be
a
semblance
of
a
title,
either
legal
or
equitable,
or
a
cloud
of
an
action
for
quieting
of
title
without
impleading
the
other
co-owners.
interest
in
land
appearing
in
some
legal
form
but
which
is,
in
fact,
unfounded,
or
which
it
would
be
inequitable
to
enforce.1[38]
An
action
for
quieting
of
title
is
Since
respondents
were
in
actual
or
physical
possession
of
the
property
when
they
imprescriptible
until
the
claimant
is
ousted
of
his
possession.
The
owner
of
a
real
filed
their
complaint
against
petitioner
on
October
24,
2001,
the
prescriptive
period
property,
as
plaintiff,
is
entitled
to
the
relief
of
quieting
of
title
even
if,
at
the
time
of
for
the
reinvindicatory
action
had
not
even
commenced
to
run,
even
if
petitioner
the
commencement
of
his
action,
he
was
not
in
actual
possession
of
real
property.
was
able
to
secure
TCT
No.
321744
over
the
property
in
1984.
After
all,
under
Article
477
of
the
New
Civil
Code,
the
owner
need
not
be
in
possession
of
the
property.
If
on
the
face
of
TCT
No.
321744
under
the
name
of
plaintiff,
its
invalidity
does
not
appear
but
rests
partly
in
pais,
an
action
for
quieting
of
title
is
proper.
In
the
present
case,
respondents
herein,
as
plaintiffs
below,
alleged
in
their
complaint,
that
their
father,
Enrique
Santos,
was
the
owner
of
the
property
based
on
TCT
No.
57272
issued
on
July
27,
1961;
and
that,
after
his
death
on
February
9,
1970,
they
inherited
the
property;
Enrique
Santos,
during
his
lifetime,
and
respondents,
after
the
death
of
the
former,
had
been
in
actual,
continuous
and
peaceful
possession
of
the
property
until
1994
when
petitioner
claimed
ownership
based
on
TCT
No.
321744
issued
on
September
18,
1984
and
barred
respondents
from
fencing
their
property.
Petitioners
claim
that
it
had
been
in
actual
or
material
possession
of
the
property
since
1984
when
TCT
No.
321744
was
issued
in
its
favor
is
belied
by
the
allegations
in
the
complaint
that
respondents
had
been
in
actual
and
material
possession
of
the
property
since
1961
up
to
the
time
they
filed
their
complaint
on
October
24,
2001.
Admittedly,
respondents
interposed
the
alternative
reinvindicatory
action
against
petitioner.
An
accion
reinvindicatoria
does
not
necessarily
presuppose
that
the
actual
and
material
possession
of
the
property
is
on
defendant
and
that
plaintiff
seeks
the
recovery
of
such
possession
from
defendant.
It
bears
stressing
that
an
accion
reinvindicatoria
is
a
remedy
seeking
the
recovery
of
ownership
and
includes
jus
possidendi,
jus
utendi,
and
jus
fruendi
as
well.
It
is
an
action
whereby
a
party
claims
ownership
over
a
parcel
of
land
and
seeks
recovery
of
its
full
possession.
Thus,
the
owner
of
real
property
in
actual
and
material
possession
thereof
may
file
an
accion
reinvindicatoria
against
another
seeking
ownership
over
a
parcel
of
land
including
jus
vindicandi,
or
the
right
to
exclude
defendants
from
the
possession
thereof.
In
this
case,
respondents
filed
an
alternative
reinvindicatory
action
claiming
ownership
over
the
property
and
the
cancellation
of
TCT
No.
321744
under
the
name
of
petitioner.
In
fine,
they
sought
to
enforce
their
jus
utendi
and
jus
vindicandi
when
petitioner
claimed
ownership
and
prevented
them
from
fencing
the
property.