PROPERTY REVIEWER Part 4 QUIETING OF TITLE

An action to quiet title to property or to remove a cloud thereon is a remedy or form of proceeding originating in equity jurisprudence, which has for its purpose an adjudication that a claim of title or an interest in property, adverse to that of complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be forever free from any danger of the hostile claim. existed, would be removed by suit to quiet title.

B. Prescription of action

Imprescriptible if plaintiff is in possession; if not, prescribes within period for filing accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria.

Cases Olviga vs CA Facts Olviga was able to register a title of a parcel of land in his name. The Glor spouses filed an action for reconveyance since they had previously purchased the land and were the real and actual occupants of the land. CA ruled that action by Glor spouses is one for quieting of title that does not prescribe. Held An action for reconveyance: (a) Prescribes in 10 years if the plaintiff is NOT in possession of the property and if the action for reconveyance is based on an implied or constructive trust. The point of reference is the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. (b) Is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE if the person claiming to be an owner is in actual possession of the property. Here, the right to seek reconveyance in effect seeks to quiet title. Pingol vs CA Facts Donasco bought land from Pingol but failed to pay the full purchase price. Nevertheless, Donasco immediately 50

A. Differences between action to quiet title, action to remove a cloud, and action to prevent a cloud.
An action to quiet title, strictly considered, is substantially an action to put an end to vexatious litigation in respect to the property involved. An action to remove a cloud is intended to procure the cancellation, delivery of, release of an instrument, encumbrance, or claim constituting a claim on plaintiffs title, and which may be used to injure or vex him in the enjoyment of his title. In an action to quiet title, the plaintiff asserts his own estate and declares generally that the defendant claims some estate in the land, without defining it, and avers that the claim is without foundation. In a suit to remove a cloud, plaintiff not only declares his own title, but also avers the source and nature of defendants claim, points out its defect, and prays that it be declared void. In an action to prevent a cloud, relief is granted if the threatened or anticipated cloud is one which if it

BLOCKD2008 al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

PROPERTY REVIEWER
took possession and built a house on the land. After Donascos death, his heirs attempted to pay the remaining balance but Pingol refused to accept. The heirs filed an action for specific performance with damages. CA ruled for the heirs saying that their action was imprescriptible since it was akin to an action to quiet title to property in ones possession. Held The agreement constituted a contract of sale. Since the delivery of the possession of the land sold had consummated the sale and transferred title to the purchaser, the action for conveyance is one to quiet title and thus imprescriptible. It is not necessary that the vendee has an absolute title. An equitable title is sufficient to clothe him with personality to bring an action to quiet title. Titong vs CA Facts Titong filed an action to quiet title against the Laurios, who he claims forcibly entered the land and began plowing it under the pretext of ownership. Held The action was NOT for quieting of title. Under Art. 476 CC, the remedy for quieting of title may only be availed of if there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which constitutes or casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon the owners title or interest in real property. These grounds are exclusive. What Titong imagined as clouds cast on his title were PRs alleged acts of physical intrusion. Clearly, the acts alleged may be considered grounds for an action for forcible entry but definitely not one for quieting of title.

C.

Who are entitled to bring action?

Rules of Court: Rule 63. Section 1. Who may file petition -- Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.

D. Notes
(1) There is a cloud on title to real property or any interest to real property (Art. 476) (2) Plaintiff has legal or equitable title to or interest in the subject/real property. (3) Instrument record claim, etc. must be valid and binding on its face but in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable. (4) Plaintiff must return benefits received from the defendant.

E. Tolentinos commentaries
(1) Scope of action A claim of title to, or an interest in property. Therefore, need not be a real right. Reasons for which equity interferes to remove a cloud on title are (1) the 51

BLOCKD2008 al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

PROPERTY REVIEWER
prevention of litigation, (2) the protection of the true title and possession, and (3) the real interest of both parties, and that of right and justice, which require that the precise state of the title be known. (2) Nature of action Suits to quiet title may be characterized as quasi in rem. (3) Property affected Generally, only real property is affected. Subject matter of an action to quiet title or to remove a cloud does not extend to personal property unless the statute so declares. In some jurisdictions, it has been held that equity will give relief in respect of personal property where, owing to exceptional circumstances , there is no adequate remedy at law. This has been justified on the ground that any distinction between real and personal property in this respect is purely artificial and tends to hinder the practical administration of justice. The Code does not expressly exclude personal property, so Tolentino believes that these principles are acceptable under our law. Art. 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. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon the title to real property or any interest therein. (1) Cloud on title Is an outstanding instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is actually invalid or inoperative, but which may nevertheless impair or affect injuriously the title to property. Is a semblance of title which appears in some legal form but which is in fact unfounded. Matter complained of must have a prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. The invalidity or inoperativeness of the instrument must be proved by extrinsic evidence. Thus, if the instrument is invalid on its face, or where it can be shown to be invalid without need of presenting the extrinsic evidence, an action to remove cloud on title does not exist. (2) Illustrations of cloud (1) a title or lien which appears to have been procured by fraud, deceit, or misrepresentations; (2) a forged instrument; (3) unauthorized or prohibited conveyances or encumbrances by incapacitated persons; (4) taxies levied on exempt property, and apparently valid tax sales and conveyances of such property; (5) a contract of sale which has been rescinded or forfeited as a result of the buyers abandonment of the contract, etc (for more examples, see p.151) (3) Must be substantial Alleged cloud must be prima facie substantial, and cast such suspicion on the title or interest to which it is hostile as will injuriously affect the market value of the property, or seriously embarrass the owner in 52
BLOCKD2008 al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

PROPERTY REVIEWER
disposing of the property or in maintaining his rights. The claim constituting the alleged cloud must be such as to cause a reasonable fear that it may bat some time be asserted against the owner vexatiously or injuriously. The facts must be such that a court would remove the cloud when cast, and there is a fixed determination to create a cloud, the danger not merely being speculative and potential.

(4) Oral assertion of right GEN. RULE: Mere verbal or parol assertion of ownership or interest in property DOES NOT create a cloud which may be removed by suit to quiet title. EXCEPTION: Where there is a written or factual basis for the asserted right (So its not merely verbal anymore. Hehe. Pilosopo talaga si Tolentino.) (5) Acts of strangers There is a conflict of opinion as to whether a deed or other instrument made by a stranger constitutes a removable cloud on title. The action to remove a cloud in title would prosper IF the circumstances would create such doubt or suspicion in the mind of a reasonable man of average intelligence as to result in materially affecting the owner in the maintenance of his right or disposition of his property. (6) Apprehended or threatened cloud The court has not only the power to remove an existing cloud, but also the power to prevent the casting of the cloud on the title to property (See Action to prevent a cloud). Relief is granted if the threatened or anticipated cloud is one which, if it existed, would be removed by suit to quiet title. The court will restrain a defendant from proceeding with an illegal act which if completed will necessarily cast a cloud upon plaintiffs title.

Art. 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 the property. (1) Title and possession of the plaintiff GEN. RULE: Plaintiff must have: (1) legal title or some interest to the property and (2) be in possession thereof, in order to maintain an action to quiet or remove a cloud thereon. Reason for possession as a requirement: a legal remedy is ordinarily available to one out of possession. Plaintiff not in possession already has a complete, adequate and plain remedy at law in ejectment. EXCEPTION: One who only has equitable title to property may maintain an action to quiet title or remove a cloud thereon (See Pingol v CA). Our Code also allows one out of possession to maintain an action against a defendant in possession. Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive prescription. (1) Extinguishment of right. Title to property may be quieted with respect to any instrument which has 53

BLOCKD2008 al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

PROPERTY REVIEWER
become funtus oficio1 by reason of facts which can be shown only by extrinsic evidence. Examples: (1) Titles and liens which have lost their force or failed to become operative because the persons thereto failed to enforce them have been cancelled as clouds. (2) Title to property will be quieted against a conveyance or mortgage which has been executed for a purpose for which it is no longer required. the defendant for any expenditures which inure to the plaintiffs benefit. A restoration of benefits will be required in any case where the plaintiff is shown to be morally bound to reimburse the defendant. Conversely, this rule will not be extended to a case in which no liability, either moral or equitable, to pay the debt rests upon the plaintiff.

(2) Bar by prescription Courts will remove a cloud which is cast upon the title to property by a lien, interest, or title which has become barred and unenforceable by reason of delay and laches or the running of the statute of limitations. Examples: (1) Mortgages which are unenforceable by reason of the expiration of the period of limitation has been held to constitute removable clouds. (2) Liens acquired by virtue of levies of execution which have become barred by limitations or by delay in enforcing them have also been held to be removable as clouds. Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses that may have redounded to the plaintiffs benefit. (1) Restoration of benefit He who seeks equity must do equity Thus, the court, as a prerequisite to quieting the complainants title, will usually require the plaintiff to restore any benefits he may have received from the defendant OR to reimburse
1

Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are hereby adopted as they are not in conflict with this Code. (1) Plaintiffs responsibility for cloud RULE: The cloud on title must be one which the applicant has NOT created, and is under no personal obligation to discharge or remove. (2) Defenses Defendant may set up equitable as well as legal defenses. Acquisition by adverse possession is a good defense to the action. A prior adjudication of the question may constitute a good defense, under the principle of res judicata. However, when the property is in possession of the plaintiff, an action to quiet title is imprescriptible. (3) Relief Court will declare such relief as is necessary to completely and finally dispose of the controversy. Court will adjust all the equities of all the parties to the action, and determine the status of all controverted claims to or against the property. In order to afford complete relief to the parties, the court may determine incidentally the status and ownership of the legal title to the 54

It has fulfilled the purpose of its creation and is of no further virtue or effect. (Blacks Law Dictionary)

BLOCKD2008 al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

PROPERTY REVIEWER
property, or the right to the possession thereof. Petition for quieting of title should take precedence over an ejectment case to prevent multiplicity of suits. So where the issue of possession is connected with that of ownership over a property, the order of a court, enjoining another court from proceeding with the ejectment controversy, is proper. In the case of a cloud which has been cat upon the title by the alteration of the deed, relief may be awarded by decreeing restoration of the deed to its original state. As an incident to relief, the court may also enjoin acts of a party claiming under a bad title. If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the administrative authorities may order the demolition of the structure at the expense of the owner, or take measures to insure public safety. (389 a) (1) Building etc. in danger of falling Under Art. 482, the owner has the duty: (a) to demolish a building, etc. in danger of falling; or (b) to repair the same in order to prevent it from falling In case he fails to do so, the administrative authorities, in the exercise of police power (see Art. 436), may order the demolition of the structure, or when demolition is not necessary, take measures to insure public saftey (2) Liability for damages Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. Owner of a building is liable for injuries caused to others by its lack of repair, whether the injured party be a tenant or third person. He is answerable for damages occasioned by his neglect to keep the building in repair and in a condition of safety to anyone lawfully in the premises, regardless of the possibility of prior knowledge concerning the condition of the building. He is liable whether or not he had actual knowledge of the ruined condition of the premises. He CANNOT avoid this liability even by stipulation in a contract. 55
BLOCKD2008 al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

Art. 481. The procedure for quieting of title or the removal of a cloud therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgate. This is in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. _________________________________________

Part 5 RUINOUS BUILDINGS AND TREES IN DANGER OF FALLING2

Art. 482. If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged to demolish it or to execute the necessary work in order to prevent it from falling.
2

Joke time! From the colorful people in Block D: Anya (addressing the block): How do you fall in a non-vertical manner? Miles (answering out of the blue): When you fall in love!

PROPERTY REVIEWER
There must be proof that the injury was caused by the deterioration of the structure or some part thereof. HOWEVER, the owner is not liable for injuries suffered by third persons from minor defects arising during the lease, which the lessee is under obligation to repair. Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place; (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property; (3) By the falling of trees situated or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure; (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place. (3) Party walls If the danger that a party wall may fall is due to the defective constructions made by a co-owner of the wall, and he does not make the necessary repairs to prevent its collapse, he will be liable for the damages caused by the falling of the wall, even if the injured party be himself a co-owner. Art. 483. Whenever a large tree threatens to fall in such a way as to cause damage to the land or tenement of another or travelers over a public or private road, the owner of the tree shall be obliged to fall and remove it; and should he not do so, it shall be done at his expense by order of the administrative authorities. The owner of the tree may be compelled to fell and remove a threatening tree, and should he fail to do so, the work shall be ordered done at his expense by the administrative authorities. The police power of the State includes the power to abate a nuisance per se or per accidens. Ruinous buildings and trees in danger of falling are nuisances per se. [See Arts. 694 (1) and 699 (3)]

Proprietors are responsible for damages caused by the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, unless caused by force majeure.

Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned in article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. Person who suffers damage should proceed against the engineer, architect or contractor who built the structure, if the collapse is due to the latters fault. 56
BLOCKD2008 al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia