QUIETING OF TITLE

Vidal filed an action for quieting of title with regard to the land she inherited from
Francisco Cacho. However, Teofilo opposed contended that there is no title to be
disturbed in the first place. The court ruled that this action indisputably an action
for quieting of title, a special proceeding wherein the court is precisely tasked to
determine the rights of the parties as to a particular parcel of land, so that the
complainant and those claiming under him/her may be forever free from any danger
of hostile claim. - Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Mamindiara P. Mangotara, et
al., G.R. No. 170375, July 7, 2010

The Syjucos' title, shows that it originated from OCT No. 994 registered on May 3,
1917 while Bonficacio's title shows that that it likewise originated from OCT No. 994,
but registered on April 19, 1917. This case affirmed the earlier finding that there is
only one OCT No. 994, the registration date of which had already been decisively
settled as 3 May 1917 and not 19 April 1917 and categorically concluded that OCT
No. 994 which reflects the date of 19 April 1917 as its registration date is null and
void. - Imelda Syjuco, et al., vs. Felisa D. Bonifacio and VSD Realty & Corporation,
G.R. No. 148748, January 14, 2015

For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur: (1)
the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title 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 must be shown to be in fact invalid or
inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. Herminio M. De Guzman, for himself and as Attorney-In-Fact of Nilo M. De Guzman,
Angelino De Guzman, Josefino M. De Guzman, Estrella M. De Guzman, Teresita De
Guzman, Elsa Margarita M. De Guzman, Evelyn M. De Guzman, Ma. Nimia M. De
Guzman, Antolin M. De Guzman, and Ferdinand M. De Guzman vs. Tabangao Realty
Incorporated, G.R. No. 154262, February 11, 2015