5 - QUIETING OF TITLE

 Article 476 - Whenever there is a CLOUD ON TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY OR ANY INTEREST
THEREIN, by reason of ANY INSTRUMENT, RECORD, CLAIM, ENCUMBRANCE OR PROCEEDING
WHICH IS APPARENTLY VALID OR EFFECTIVE BUT IS IN TRUTH AND IN FACT INVALID, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such
cloud or to quiet the title.
- THERE MUST BE AN PROCEEDING, RECORD, INSTRUMENT, CLAIM, ENCUMBRANCE
- Kinds of Cloud (or a doubt upon the title of the owner): PRICE (by reason of proceeding, record,
instrument, claim, encumbrance)
- Cloud APPARENTLY valid or effective (on its face)
- BUT in truth and in fact
- ineffective -
- invalid - lacks the essential requisites (COC)
- unenforceable - Article 1403 NCC (no authority, Statute of Frauds, both parties are incapable of
giving consent)
- voidable - incapacitated, vices of consent (FMVIU)
- extinguished (or terminated) (Example: X was given by Y the right of ownership over a piece of land
for 5 years. At the end of that time, if X insists on his continued ownership, Y may bring the action to
quiet title.)
- barred by extinctive prescription (Example: A possessed B’s land in bad faith adversely, publicly, and
continuously for 30 years. A is now, therefore, the owner. If B still insists on his ownership, A may
bring the action to quiet title. In this case, B can really not recover the land anymore from A.)

 For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur: (Rumarate v. CA)
(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an 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 cloud on his title must be shown to
be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

 Cloud - prejudicial to title

 NOTE: Please observe that when the instrument is not valid on its face, the remedy (quieting of title) does
not apply; thus, the instrument MUST BE VALID ON ITS FACE (but in truth defective) for the remedy of
the quieting of title to apply
- In one case, it was held that the test is this: if a person were sued for ejectment on the strength of the
contract, does he have to produce evidence in order to defeat the action? If no evidence other than the
contract is needed, it is because the contract is invalid on its face. If evidence is still required, it is because
the contract is apparently valid. (Pixley v. Huggins)
- Would the owner of the property in an action at law brought by the adverse party, and founded upon the
instrument or claim, be required to offer evidence to defeat a recovery? If proof would be essential, the
cloud exists; if proof is not needed, no cloud is cast.

 Nature of the Action: THE RESULT IS NOT BINDING UPON THE WHOLE WORLD, THEREFORE, NOT
IN REM. It is really “in personam’’ because it is enforceable only against the defeated party, or privies.
(Sabina Santiago, et al. v. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc., where the Court said that A SUIT TO QUIET TITLE
BROUGHT AGAINST ONE CO-OWNER, IS NOT RES JUDICATA WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER CO-
OWNERS WHO WERE NOT MADE PARTIES THERETO). In fact, an action for conveyance, which is
really in personam, has, in at least one case, been considered by our Supreme Court, as an action to quiet
title. (Sapto, et al. v. Fabiana, 103 Phil. 683).
- IT IS QUASI IN REM, WHICH IS AN ACTION IN PERSONAM CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY.
- Plaintiff - one who institutes the action of quieting of title

 Does the action to quiet title prescribe?

- Plaintiff IN POSSESSION of the property - action does not PRESCRIBE; only right is to remove or
prevent cloud
- Reason: He has a continuing right to be given aid by the court to ascertain and determine the nature
of such claim and its effect on his title, or to assert any superior equity in his favor. HE MAY WAIT
UNTIL HIS POSSESSION IS DISTURBED OR HIS TITLE IS ATTACKED BEFORE TAKING STEPS
TO VINDICATE HIS RIGHT.
- Plaintiff NOT in possession of the property- action MAY PRESCRIBE (the period of prescription for the
recovery of the land is either 10 or 30 years, depending on ordinary or extraordinary prescription); may
also be barred by LACHES (undue delay in the exercise of right or assert title); aside from being given the
right to remove or prevent cloud, he may also bring the ordinary actions of ejectment, publiciana or
reivindicatoria within the proper prescriptive periods
 Article 477 - The plaintiff MUST HAVE LEGAL OR EQUITABLE TITLE TO, OR INTEREST in the real
property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.
- What is an EQUITABLE (OR BENEFICIAL) INTEREST? While a legal title focuses on the duties of the
property owner, equitable title refers to the enjoyment of the property. Equitable ownership is not “true
ownership.” In other words, someone with equitable title could not argue that he or she was the legal
owner or possessor of the property in a court of law. True ownership requires legal title. Equitable title does,
however, grant the person more consistent control over the property. That’s right – equitable title can
be more important than legal title.
- Example of EQUITABLE TITLE: “the Supreme Court had occasion to rule that one who has complied
with all the terms and conditions which would entitle him to a homestead patent, even without a right on the
land is to be regarded as the equitable owner thereof.” (Balboa v. Farrales)

1. Realty Sales Enterprise Inc. v. IAC (September 28, 1987)

- Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are they, strictly speaking, in personam, but being
against the person in respect of the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem. (McDaniel v.
McElvy, 108 So. 820 [1926].) The judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only between the parties.
(Sandejas v. Robles, 81 Phil. 421 [1948]).

- It is quasi in rem, which is an action in personam concerning real property.

- If there is publication, that is in rem.
- The result is not binding upon the whole world, therefore, not in rem. It is really “in personam’’ because it is
enforceable only against the defeated party, or privies. (See Sabina Santiago, et al. v. J.M. Tuason and Co.,
Inc., L-14223, Nov. 23, 1960, where the Court said that a suit to quiet title brought against one co-owner, is
NOT res judicata with respect to the other co-owners who were not made parties thereto). In fact, an action for
conveyance, which is really in personam, has, in at least one case, been considered by our Supreme Court, as
an action to quiet title. (Sapto, et al. v. Fabiana, 103 Phil. 683). Technically, it is quasi in rem, which is an
action in personam concerning real property.

2. Iglesia ni Kristo v. Ponferrada (October 27, 2006)

- Since respondents were in actual or physical possession of the property when they filed their complaint
against petitioner on October 24, 2001, the prescriptive period for the reinvindicatory action had not even
commenced to run, even if petitioner was able to secure TCT No. 321744 over the property in 1984. The
reason for this is that:
“x x x one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule
being, that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to
ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which
right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.”
- IN POSSESSION of the property - action to quiet title does not PRESCRIBE

- Legal vs Beneficial Ownership - Article 477 (Plaintiff must have legal or equitable title or interest in the real
property)

3. Roman Catholics Archbishop of Caceres v. Heirs of Manuel Abella (November 23, 2005)
- It should be emphasized that in a case for ejectment, any finding of the court regarding the issue of
ownership is merely provisional and not conclusive. This was stressed in Umpoc vs. Mercado, where the Court
stated: ... we emphasize that our disquisition on the ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP IN EJECTMENT CASES, AS IN
THE CASE AT BAR, IS ONLY PROVISIONAl to determine who between the parties has the better right of
possession. It is, therefore, NOT CONCLUSIVE as to the issue of ownership, which is the subject matter of a
separate case of annulment of title filed by respondent. x x x As the law now stands, in an ejectment suit, the
question of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to
possession de facto. Thus, the finding in the forcible entry case that petitioner had become the owner and
rightful possessor of the disputed property because respondents had donated the property to petitioner is only
provisional. It is the ruling in the case for quieting of title, adjudging herein respondents to be the absolute
owners of the subject property,which is conclusive. The finding in the case for quieting of title that respondents
never consented to petitioner’s occupation of the subject property has now become final and immutable. x x x
Necessarily,the finding in the case for quieting of title that respondents never agreed to donate the property or
to allow petitioner to occupy the subject land prevails over the ruling in the forcible entry case.
- There can be no other conclusion but that the finality of the decision in the quieting of title case constitutes a
supervening event that justifies the non-enforcement of the judgment in the forcible entry case. In Natalia
Realty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the Court explained thus: ... The jurisdiction of the court to amend, modify or
alter its judgment terminates when the judgment becomes final. This is the principle of immutability of final
judgment that is subject to only few exceptions, none of which is present in this case. On the other hand, the
jurisdiction of the court to execute its judgment continues even after the judgment has become final for the
purpose of enforcement of judgment. . . . One of the exceptions to he principle of immutability of final
judgments is the existence of supervening events. Supervening events refer to facts which transpire after
judgment has become final and executory or to new circumstances which developed after the judgment has
acquired finality, including matters which the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial as they were
not yet in existence at that time. In the case at bar, the new circumstance which developed after the finality of
the judgment in the forcible entry is the fact that the decision in the case for quieting of title had also attained
finality and conclusively resolved the issue of ownership over the subject land, and the concomitant right of
possession thereof. Verily, to grant execution of the judgment in the forcible entry case would work injustice on
respondents who had been conclusively declared the owners and rightful possessors of the disputed land.

4. Anastasia vda De Aviles v. CA (November 21, 1996)

- We agree with respondent Court. The facts presented unmistakably constitute a clear case of boundary
dispute, which is not cognizable in a special civil action to quiet title. Quieting of title is a common law remedy
for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property.
- In fine, to avail of the remedy of quieting of title, a plaintiff 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. Thus, petitioners have wholly misapprehended the import of the
foregoing rule by claiming that respondent Court erred in holding that there was “no x x x evidence of any
muniment of title, proceeding, written contract, x x x,” and that there were, as a matter of fact, two such
contracts, viz., (i) the Agreement of Partition executed by private respondent and his brothers (including the
petitioners’ father and predecessor-in-interest), in which their respective shares in the inherited property were
agreed upon, and (ii) the Deed of Sale evidencing the redemption by petitioner Anastacia Vda. de Aviles of the
subject property in a foreclosure sale. However, these documents in no way constitute a cloud or cast a doubt
upon the title of petitioners. Rather, the uncertainty arises from the parties’ failure to situate and fix the
boundary between the irrespective properties.
- Remedy regarding boundaries - call for a surveyor to determine the boundaries

5. Rumarate v. CA (April 18, 2006)

- In an action for quieting of title, the court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the parties so that the
complainant and those claiming under him may be forever free from any danger of hostile claim. Under Article
476 of the Civil Code, the remedy may be availed of only when, by reason of any instrument, record,
claim,encumbrance or proceeding, which appears valid but is, in fact,invalid, ineffective, voidable or
unenforceable, a cloud is thereby cast on the complainant’s title to real property or any interest therein. Article
477 of the same Code states that the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real
property which is the subject matter of the suit. For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable
requisites must concur,namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an 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 cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance
of validity or legal efficacy.

- Laches - It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that
the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. While it is by express provision of
law that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription
or adverse possession, it is likewise an enshrined rule that even a registered owner may be barred from
recovering possession of property by virtue of laches. The elements of laches are: (1) conduct of a party on the
basis of which the other party seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting one’s rights, despite having had
knowledge or notice of the other party’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3)
lack of knowledge or notice on the part of a party that the person against whom laches is imputed would assert
the right; and (4) injury or prejudice to the party asserting laches in the event the suit is allowed to prosper