010 SPS DE DIOS v. RAÑOLA (Salve) and Lot No.
and Lot No. 8979 (sic) containing an area of 710 square meters per cadastral survey
March 6, 2019 | Resolution. | Quieting of Title
PETITIONER: Spouses Candelario De Dios
RESPONDENTS: Romeo Rañola
SUMMARY: This dispute relates to the contested ownership of three lots and their
improvements situated in Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu and designated as Lot No.
2100, Lot No. 2279, and Lot No. 8970, all of the Catmon Cadastre. Sps De Dios
commenced this case against Salvador Arendain in the RTC in Cebu City. The
Spouses alleged that they are the absolute and exclusive owners of a parcel of land
and its improvements situated at Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu, they have been in
continuous and peaceful possession for 18 years, Ranola knows of them as the
Spouses visit the property on the weekends, the Spouses built nipa huts in 1971. Last
June of 1989, after an absence of visits to the property for nearly 6 months, due to
the illness of Candelario de Dios Sr., the Spouses found out much to their surprise
that the Ranola has made it appear and/or misrepresented to people in Binongcalan,
Catmon, Cebu, and to visiting tourists, that he is the absolute owner of the aforesaid
parcel of land and in fact permitted a foreigner to build a nipa hut inside the property
of the Spouses, which nipa hut has since been abandoned by the aforesaid foreigner.
Ranola is now threatening to build a new nipa hut inside the aforesaid property. The
Spouses prayed that they be declared as the true, absolute and exclusive owners of
the parcel of land.
Arendain (the father of Ranola) countered that only 200 square meters constituted
the area covered by the Spouses' Tax Declaration No. 007678; that the land with an
area of 660 square meters to the west of their land belonged to him as shown by his
Tax Declaration No. 17068.
Maria Concepcion Riveral (Riveral) led her complaint in intervention, whereby she
averred being the legitimate owner of the land subject of the complaint after having
acquired the same from her grandfather, Tito Arendain (Tito); that prior to his death,
Tito had extrajudicially partitioned his estate among his heirs, including Riveral's
mother, Leonora Arendain (Leonora); that under the extrajudicial partition, the lot in
question had been allocated to Gloria Arendain, but was later on transferred to
Leonora by Deed of Exchange of Real Property; and that Leonora had eventually
sold the lot to her on May 11, 1989.
There is contest involving the three lots (Nos. 2100, 2279 and 8970) with respect to
both intervenors Riveral and Rañola in this case. The Spouses however, confine their
claim only to two lots only, namely, Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970 situated North of Lot
No. 2100.
RTC: Spouses Candelario and Zosima De Dios absolute and true owners over
parcels of land denominated as Lot No. 2279 containing an area of 771 square meters
no. 911-D, Catmon Cadastre. The Court further declares intervenor Romeo Rañola
owner over Lot No. 2100 containing an area of 1,453 square meters per cadastral
survey no. 911-D, Catmon Cadastre.
CA: Romeo Rañola has a better right over the said lot 2279 and 8970. As to the
second issue of Lot number 2100, the trial court is correct in its assessment of the
case when it stated that said lot is owned by intervenor- appellant, Romeo Rañola
Issues: 1) WoN action to quiet title is the proper remedy – NO, because the Spouses
failed to prove the requisites for action to quiet to title and the acts averred in the
complaint are more of for an action of forcible entry.
 Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or
doubt or uncertainty in title to real property.
 For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must be
present, namely: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or 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 a cloud on his title or interest must be shown to
be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or
legal efficacy.
 First of all, the Spouses did not have legal or equitable title to or interest in the
real properties subject of the action.
 And, secondly, the complaint did not state that an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding had beclouded the Spouses' title over the properties
involved.
 They averred therein only that defendant Arendain, the predecessor of Rañola,
had made it appear that he was the absolute owner, thus allowing the
construction of the nipa hut thereon. The acts thus averred could be considered
grounds to bring an action for forcible entry but not an action for the quieting of
title.
2) Who owns Lot 2100, Lot 2279, and Lot 8970 – Rañola owns Lot 2100 that he
acquired it from Riveral. There being no appeal of the RTC's judgment in favor of
Rañola, the award of Lot No. 2100 to him has attained finality. No party proved
ownership of Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 as the parties failed to prove by
complying with the requirements under Article 434 of the Civil Code.
 Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an action to
recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims of having a
better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed
and second, his title to the same. The person who claims that he has a better
right to the property must prove the identity of the land he is claiming by
describing the location, area and boundaries thereof.
 Undeniably, there is a serious doubt as to the identity of the property claimed by
the Spouses as they were not able to explain the signi cant increase in the area
thereof during the trial. Neither could Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 be
 declared under the name of Rañola. He also did not preponderantly establish
being the owner of the lots.
 Rañola did not discharge this burden as he was not able to prove his ownership
of Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970 by preponderance of evidence.
DOCTRINE: For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites
must be present, namely: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or 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 a cloud on his title or interest must be shown to be
in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal
efficacy.
Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an action to recover
the ownership of a real property, the person who claims of having a better right to it
must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed and second, his title
to the same. The person who claims that he has a better right to the property must
prove the identity of the land he is claiming by describing the location, area and
boundaries thereof.
FACTS:
1. This dispute relates to the contested ownership of three lots and their
improvements situated in Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu and designated as Lot No.
2100 (1,453 square meters), Lot No. 2279 (771 square meters) and Lot No. 8970
(710 square meters), all of the Catmon Cadastre.
2. Sps De Dios commenced this case against Salvador Arendain in the RTC in
Cebu City.
3. Sps De Dios alleged that:
1) they are the absolute and exclusive owners of a parcel of land and its
improvements situated at Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu, which parcel of land
is more particularly described as follows, to wit: "Tax Declaration No.
007678 for the year 1971 in the name of Candelario de Dios Sr.; Location:
Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu; Boundaries: N-Sea, S-Sea, E- Sea, W-
National Road; Area: 600 square meters; Present Possessor: herein
plaintiffs.";
2) Since the year 1971 and until the present, or a period of eighteen (18)
years already, they have been in continuous and peaceful possession of the
aforesaid parcel of land and its improvements which possession in open,
public, peaceful and to the exclusion of all others;
3) Ranola knows the fact that Sps De Dios are the genuine and absolute
owners of the aforesaid parcel of land since Candelario de Dios Sr. has been
a resident of Catmon, Cebu, before he transferred residence to Cebu City,
and Candelario de Dios Sr. during weekends always visits the aforesaid
property. Moreover, Candelario de Dios Sr. is a close friend of Tito
Arendain, the father of the herein Ranola;
4) the Spouses in the year 1971 have built nipa huts within the property and
has used the same for recreational purposes since that year and until 1988,
and Ranola has never lifted a finger to prevent or stop the plaintiffs from
exercising the aforesaid acts of ownership and possession, until lately in the
present year, 1989;
5) Last June of 1989, after an absence of visits to the property for nearly 6
months, due to the illness of Candelario de Dios Sr., the Spouses found out
much to their surprise that the Ranola has made it appear and/or
misrepresented to people in Binongcalan, Catmon, Cebu, and to visiting
tourists, that he is the absolute owner of the aforesaid parcel of land and in
fact permitted a foreigner to build a nipa hut inside the property of the
Spouses, which nipa hut has since been abandoned by the aforesaid
foreigner. Ranola is now threatening to build a new nipa hut inside the
aforesaid property;
6) the Spouses have demanded upon the defendant to withdraw their
aforesaid illegal and baseless claims over the aforesaid properties and to
cease and desist from violating the proprietary rights but Ranola without
just and valid reason, adamantly refused to comply
4. The Spouses prayed that they be declared as the true, absolute and exclusive
owners of the parcel of land.
5. Arendain (the father of Ranola) countered that only 200 square meters
constituted the area covered by the Spouses' Tax Declaration No. 007678; that
the land with an area of 660 square meters to the west of their land belonged to
him as shown by his Tax Declaration No. 17068 and that he had been in
peaceful, public and continuous possession of the land in the concept of an
owner since 1972, paying realty taxes thereon.
6. Maria Concepcion Riveral (Riveral) led her complaint in intervention, whereby
she averred being the legitimate owner of the land subject of the complaint after
having acquired the same from her grandfather, Tito Arendain (Tito); that prior
to his death, Tito had extrajudicially partitioned his estate among his heirs,
including Riveral's mother, Leonora Arendain (Leonora); that under the
extrajudicial partition, the lot in question had been allocated to Gloria Arendain,
but was later on transferred to Leonora by Deed of Exchange of Real Property;
and that Leonora had eventually sold the lot to her on May 11, 1989.
7. There is contest involving the three lots (Nos. 2100, 2279 and 8970) with
respect to both intervenors Riveral and Rañola in this case. The Spouses
however, confine their claim only to two lots only, namely, Lot Nos. 2279 and
8970 situated North of Lot No. 2100.
8. The lot covered by TD No. 4282 has the following boundaries, namely, North
— Franscisca Butanas, East — seashore, South — Creek and West is the
National Road. Engr. Lorenzo T. Esmero, Land Management Sector
Coordinator, Correction Survey, Cad. 991-D which refers to Catmon, Cadastre
categorically identi ed and pointed to Lot 2100 as the lot covered and delineated
by the said boundaries.
9. RTC: It is thus obvious that the lot which intervenor Riveral owned or used to
own is that parcel of land now referred to as Lot No. 2100.
10. After a judicious scrutiny (sic) of the evidence presented by the parties, the
 Court is fully convinced that the Spouses are owners of Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970.
These are the properties covered by Tax Declaration No. 007678 and bounded
by the following boundaries, North — Sea, East — Sea, South — Sea and West
— National Road.
11. With this factual finding, the Court is left to decide on who is entitled to Lot
2100 which is jointly contested by both intervenors Riveral and Rañola.
12. Lot No. 2100 per result of the cadastral survey has an area of ONE
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THREE (1,453) square meters. This is
the biggest of herein three lots. This is the only lot purchased by intervenor
Rañola from intervenor Riveral.
13. Thus the Deed of Sale (Exh. 1-Rañola) identi es the lot subject of the sale as that
parcel of land covered by TD 19090.
14. RTC: Spouses Candelario and Zosima De Dios absolute and true owners over
parcels of land denominated as Lot No. 2279 containing an area of 771 square
meters and Lot No. 8979 (sic) containing an area of 710 square meters per
cadastral survey no. 911-D, Catmon Cadastre. The Court further declares
intervenor Romeo Rañola owner over Lot No. 2100 containing an area of 1,453
square meters per cadastral survey no. 911-D, Catmon Cadastre.
15. CA promulgated the assailed decision partially reversing the judgment of the
RTC as to Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970
16. Romeo Rañola has a better right over the said lot 2279 and 8970. As gleaned
from the complaint, the tax declaration of Spouses de Dios would show that it
was declared under Presidential Decree No. 76, paragraph 5 of which states that
"all existing tax declarations as of December 31, 1973 shall be superseded by the
corresponding new tax declarations issued under this Decree.
17. Engr. De Dios, during cross-examination, thinks that Tito Arendain was once
the owner of the property in question.
18. Roger de Dios, son of plaintiff-appellee also states on direct examination that
the property in question, "was occupied by my grandparents and it was only
during the time of my father sometime in 1971, that the property was registered
for tax declaration purposes.
19. Upon the other hand, intervenor Romeo Rañola's right to the property in
questions rests on his claim of ownership as follows: After the death of TITO
ARENDAIN, an Extra-Judicial Partition was executed and the land in question
was allocated to GLORIA ARENDAIN.
20. Subsequent to the partition, a Deed of Exchange was executed wherein the
parcel of land allocated to GLORIA ARENDAIN was exchanged to that of
LEONORA ARENDAIN RIVERAL.
21. Finally, Maria Concepcion Riveral executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated
September 11, 1990 wherein Lots 2100, 2279 and 8970 was sold to ROMEO
RAÑOLA.
22. Atty. Nicanor Enriquez, Provincial Assessor of the Province of Cebu, stated on
cross examination of Atty. Guidoquio that the affidavit of Candelario de Dios
was the only basis for transfer of the tax declaration in the name of Candelario
de Dios.
23. As to the second issue of Lot number 2100, the trial court is correct in its
assessment of the case when it stated that said lot is owned by intervenor-
appellant, Romeo Rañola since Ma. Concepcion Riveral in her testimony as
witness accepted she sold Lot 2100 but is now intervening for the other two lots.
24. If intervenor Maria Concepcion Riveral sold Lot 2100, it therefore follows that
she also sold Lots 2279 and 8970 since the origin of the three lots was from the
Estate of Tito Arendain. Furthermore, the Deed of Absolute Sale indubitably
shows that she sold the three above-mentioned lots to Ranola.
25. CA: The trial court is not correct in stating that Sps De Dios has a better right
over said property since their title over said property is spurious and has no leg
to stand on. It is therefore clear that said property should be given to intervenor
Romeo Rañola since he has a legal right to said lots.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN action to quiet title is the proper remedy – NO, because the Spouses failed
to prove the requisites for action to quiet to title and the acts averred in the
complaint are more of for an action of forcible entry.
2. Who owns Lot 2100, Lot 2279, and Lot 8970 – Rañola owns Lot 2100 that he
acquired it from Riveral. There being no appeal of the RTC's judgment in favor
of Rañola, the award of Lot No. 2100 to him has attained finality. No party
proved ownership of Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 as the parties failed to
prove by complying with the requirements under Article 434 of the Civil Code.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision
promulgated on August 4, 2005; MODIFIES the May 31, 1996 decision of the
Regional Trial Court in Cebu City, Branch 22 in Civil Case No. CEB-8165;
DECLARES respondent Romeo Rañola owner of Lot No. 2100 only; and
DISMISSES respondent Rañola's complaint-in- intervention as to Lot Nos. 2279 and
8970. ICHDca
RATIO:
Action to quiet title is not
the proper remedy for petitioners
1. Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or
doubt or uncertainty in title to real property.
2. For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must be
present, namely: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or 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 a cloud on his title or interest must be shown to
be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or
legal efficacy.
3. Both requisites were wanting in this case.
4. First of all, the Spouses did not have legal or equitable title to or interest in the
real properties subject of the action.
5. Legal title denotes registered ownership, which the Spouses did not possess
inasmuch as they did not have certificates of title under their names.
6. They also did not prove that they held an equitable title over the lands, which
 meant bene cial ownership derived from either a valid contract or relation, and,
based on recognized equitable principles, the right of the party to whom the
lands belonged to have the legal title transferred to them.
7. Their claim over the lands merely rested on Tax Declaration No. 007678 and
their possession thereof since 1971. Their complaint did not also allege that their
claim had been based on acquisitive prescription.
8. And, secondly, the complaint did not state that an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding had beclouded the Spouses' title over the properties
involved.
9. They averred therein only that defendant Arendain, the predecessor of Rañola,
had made it appear that he was the absolute owner, thus allowing the
construction of the nipa hut thereon. The acts thus averred could be considered
grounds to bring an action for forcible entry but not an action for the quieting of
title.
10. Accordingly, the complaint for quieting of title should instead be dismissed for
not being the proper remedy for the Spouses to commence in order to assert their
claim, if any.
The sale between Riveral and Rañola involved Lot No. 2100 only; 
No party
proved ownership of Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970
Absolute Sale — the property subject of these transfers was clearly different
from the property being claimed by the Spouses.
19. Aside from the obvious disparity in the area and boundaries, the property being
claimed by the Spouses are residential in nature while that of Rañola consisted
of agricultural and residential land. Consequently, Rañola's claim of ownership
over Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 could not prosper because he did not
sufficiently establish that Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 were parts of the
parcel of land that he had acquired from Riveral. SDH
20. DENR's cadastral survey disclosed that the property claimed by Rañola and his
predecessor-in-interest, Riveral, pertained only to Lot No. 2100.
21. Lot No. 2100 was the same property acquired by Riveral from her predecessors
was further con rmed by Engr. Lorenzo Esmero of the Land Management
Services of the DENR
22. Although Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 could not be declared to be owned by
Rañola, the RTC had correctly ruled that Rañola could claim ownership of Lot
No. 2100 by virtue of having acquired it from Riveral. There being no appeal of
the RTC's judgment in favor of Rañola, the award of Lot No. 2100 to him has
attained finality.

11. Based on the records, the Court concludes that the CA patently erred in
declaring Rañola the rightful owner of Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970.
12. Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an action to
recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims of having a
better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed
and second, his title to the same. The person who claims that he has a better
right to the property must prove the identity of the land he is claiming by
describing the location, area and boundaries thereof.
13. The Spouses failed in both regards.
14. The copy of Tax Declaration No. 007678 attached to the complaint showed that
the area of the subject property was only 200 square meters, not 600 square
meters as alleged by the Spouses in their complaint
15. Based on the result of the cadastral survey conducted by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Spouses' claim also covered
Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970, with a combined area of 1,481 square meters.
16. Undeniably, there is a serious doubt as to the identity of the property claimed by
the Spouses as they were not able to explain the signi cant increase in the area
thereof during the trial.
17. Neither could Lot No. 2279 and Lot No. 8970 be declared under the name of
Rañola. He also did not preponderantly establish being the owner of the lots.
18. Rañola did not discharge this burden as he was not able to prove his ownership
of Lot Nos. 2279 and 8970 by preponderance of evidence. While Rañola appears
to have acquired legal title by virtue of the series of conveyances — from Tito's
Extra- Judicial Partition, to the Deed of Exchange between Gloria and Leonora,
then the Deed of Sale between Leonara and Riveral, and nally Riveral's Deed of