QUIETING OF TITLE

JOAQUIN G. CHUNG, JR., PAZ ROYERAZ-SOLER, and MANSUETO

MACEDA, Petitioners,
vs.
JACK DANIEL MONDRAGON, (deceased), substituted by his sisters namely:
TEOTIMA M. BOURBON, EMMA M. MILLAN, EUGENIA M. RAMA and ROSARIO
M. CABALLES; CLARINDA REGIS-SCHMITZ and MARIA LINA
MALMISA, Respondents.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 179754. November 21, 2012

PONENTE: DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioners Joaquin G. Chung, Jr., Paz Royeras-Soler, and Mansueto
Maceda are descendants of Rafael Mondragon by his first wife, Eleuteria
Calunia, while respondent Jack Daniel Mondragon is Rafael’s descendant by his
second wife, Andrea Baldos.

Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 22447 is registered in the name of

"Heirs of Andrea Baldos represented by Teofila G. Maceda" and covers 16,177
square meters of land in Macrohon, Southern Leyte.

Petitioners Rafael appeared as owner of the land in its tax declaration,

and that a free patent was issued in 1987 in the name of Andrea’s heirs upon
application of Teofila G. Maceda (Teofila), who is petitioners’ sister.

On the other hand, respondents claim that Andrea is the exclusive owner
of the land, having inherited the same from her father Blas Baldos. During
Andrea’s lifetime, she was in lawful, peaceful and continuous possession
thereof in the concept of owner; that in 1954, Andrea conveyed a portion
thereof to one Crispina Gloria de Cano via a document written in the vernacular
wherein she categorically stated that she inherited the land from her father and
she was the true and exclusive owner of the land; that after Andrea died in
1955, her son Fortunato Mondragon took over, paying taxes thereon religiously;
and when Fortunato died, his son Jack Daniel, herein respondent came into
possession and enjoyment thereof.

On August 18, 2000, Jack Daniel sold a 1,500-square meter portion of the
land to his co-respondent Clarinda Regis-Schmitz.

On the claim that Jack Daniel had no right to sell a portion of the land
and that the sale to Regis Schmitz created a cloud upon their title. The rights

Property Law Cases- Quieting of Title Page 1

belong to the legitimate heirs of Rafael and Eleuteria be declared valid and
binding against the whole world.

Petitioners made an admission in open court that respondent Jack Daniel

is Andrea’s grandson and heir.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners can file the quieting of title against the
sale made by the respondent Jack Daniels.

RULING:
The issues in a case for quieting of title are fairly simple; the plaintiff
need to prove only two things, 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) that 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. Stated
differently, the plaintiff must show that he has a legal or at least an equitable
title over the real property in dispute, and that some deed or proceeding
beclouds its validity or efficacy."

It is evident from the title that the land belongs to no other than the
heirs of Andrea Baldos, Rafael’s second wife. The land could not have belonged
to Rafael, because he is not even named in OCT No. 22447. With greater reason
may it be said that the land could not belong to petitioners, who are Rafael’s
children by his first wife Eleuteria. Unless Eleuteria and Andrea were related by
blood – such fact is not borne out by the record – they could not be heirs to
each other. And if indeed Eleuteria and Andrea were blood relatives, then
petitioners would have so revealed at the very first opportunity. Moreover, the
fact that Rafael died ahead of Andrea, and that he is not even named in the
title, give the impression that the land belonged solely to the heirs of Andrea,
to the exclusion of Rafael. If this were not true, then the title should have as
registered owners the "Heirs of Rafael and Andrea Mondragon", in which case
the petitioners certainly would possess equitable title, they being descendants-
heirs of Rafael. Yet OCT No. 22447 is not so written.

Add to this is the fact that petitioners are not in possession of the land. A
different view would have been taken if they were. Indeed, not even the fact
that their sister Teofila Maceda’s name appears in OCT No. 22447 could
warrant a different conclusion. Her name appears therein only a representative
of Andrea’s heirs. As mere representative, she could have no better right.16

On the basis of the foregoing considerations, Civil Case No. R-3248

deserved no greater treatment than dismissal. Petitioners do not possess legal
or equitable title to be land, such that the only recourse left for the trial court

Property Law Cases- Quieting of Title Page 2

was to dismiss the case. Thus, said although they both arrived at the correct
conclusion, the trial court and the CA did so by an erroneous appreciation of
the facts and evidence.

Petitioners cannot, on the pretext of maintaining a suit for quieting of

title, have themselves declared as Andrea’s heirs so that they may claim a share
in the land. If they truly believe that they are entitled to a share in the land,
they may avail of the remedies afforded to excluded heirs under the Rules of
Court, or sue for the annulment of OCT No. 22447 and seek the issuance of
new titles in their name, or recover damages in the event prescription has sent.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. Civil Case No.
R-3248 is accordingly DISMISSED.

Property Law Cases- Quieting of Title Page 3

 NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by its Secretary General, Petitioner,
vs.
ALFREDO S. PASCUAL, in his capacity as the Regional Executive Director,
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Regional Office No.
32, Respondents.
G.R. No. 169272. July 11, 2012
SECOND DIVISION

PONENTE: BRION, J.:

FACTS:

On December 11, 2000, the petitioner filed a complaint with the RTC for
"quieting of title, injunction, annulment of alias writ of execution, with prayer
for temporary restraining order, preliminary prohibitory injunction, and
damages" against Silverio Songcuan and/or his heirs, the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Regional
Executive Director of the DENR, Regional Office No. 2, Tuguegarao, Cagayan.

The petitioner alleged that it is the lawful and absolute owner of two (2)
parcels of land, known as Cadastral Lot Nos. 3 and 361, together with the two-
storey building thereon. The petitioner had been in open, continuous and
adverse possession for a period of more than thirty (30) years, and a cloud
exists on its title because of an invalid December 4, 1985 decision of the Bureau
of Lands. The petitioner including all those in privities to vacate the lots and to
remove their improvements thereon. The DENR Secretary affirmed on February
7, 1989 the Bureau of Lands’ December 4, 1985 decision. Recourse to the Office
of the President (OP) had been unavailing, and the DENR Regional Office No. 2
issued on December 10, 1996 and June 6, 2000 alias writs of execution
pursuant to the OP’s decision.

The DENR Regional Office No. 2, through Regional Executive Director

Alfredo S. Pascual, herein respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action. It argued that the petitioner had no legal right
or title to file the complaint since the final and executory Bureau of Lands’
December 4, 1985 decision ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to possess
the lots.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA committed a reversible error in finding that the

RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petitioner’s
complaint for quieting of title for failure to state a cause of action.

Property Law Cases- Quieting of Title Page 4

RULING:

The petition lacks merit.

Under Articles 47613 and 47714 of the Civil Code, there are two (2)
indispensable requisites in an action to quiet title: (1) that the plaintiff or
complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property
subject of the action; and (2) that a deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding is
claimed to be casting cloud on his title.

From the allegations, the Court find it clear that the petitioner no longer
had any legal or equitable title to or interest in the lots. The petitioner’s status
as possessor and owner of the lots had been settled in the final and executory
December 4, 1985 decision of the Bureau of Lands that the DENR Secretary and
the OP affirmed on appeal. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the possession
and ownership of the lots.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

Property Law Cases- Quieting of Title Page 5

 ANASTACIA VDA. DE AVILES, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and CAMILO AVILES, respondents.
G.R. No. 95748. November 21, 1996
THIRD DIVISION

PONENTE: PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:
The petitioners aver that they are the actual possessors of a parcel of
land situated in Malawa, Lingayen, Pangasinan, more particularly described as
fishpond, cogonal, unirrigated rice and residential land, bounded on the N by
Camilo Aviles; on the E by Malawa River, on the S by Anastacio Aviles and on
the W by Juana and Apolonio Joaquin, with an area of 18,900 square meters
and declared under Tax Declaration No. 31446. This property is the share of
their father, Eduardo Aviles and brother of the defendant, in the estate of their
deceased parents, Ireneo Aviles and Anastacia Salazar.

Since 1957, Eduardo Aviles was in actual possession of the property.

On March 23, 1983, defendant Camilo Aviles asserted a color of title over
the northern portion of the property with an area of approximately 1,200
square meters by constructing a bamboo fence and moving the earthen dikes.

Defendant Camilo Aviles admitted the agreement of partition executed by

him and his brothers, Anastacio and Eduardo. In accordance therewith, the total
area of the property of their parents which they divided is 46,795 square
meters and the area alloted (sic) to Eduardo Aviles is 16,111 square meters
more or less, to Anastacio Aviles is 16,214 square meters more or less, while
the area alloted to defendant Camilo Aviles is 14,470 square meters more or
less. The respective area(s) alloted to them was agreed and measured before the
execution of the agreement but he was not present when the measurement was
made. At present, he is only occupying an area of 12,686 square meters which
is smaller than his actual share of 14,470 square meters.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the action for quieting of title is not the proper remedy
for settling boundary dispute.

RULING:
In the case at bar, quieting of title is not the proper remedy. The facts
presented unmistakably constitute a clear case of boundary dispute, which is
not cognizable in a special civil action to quiet title.

Property Law Cases- Quieting of Title Page 6

 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.

The Civil Code authorizes the said remedy in the following language:

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 a title to real property or any interest therein.

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 evidence of any muniment of title,
proceeding, written contract,", 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 their respective properties.

As correctly held by the respondent Court, "(i)n fact, both plaintiffs and
defendant admitted the existence of the agreement of partition dated June 8,
1957 and in accordance therewith, a fixed area was allotted (sic) to them and
that the only controversy is whether these lands were properly measured. There
is no adverse claim by the defendant "which is apparently valid, but is, in truth
and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable" and which
constitutes a cloud thereon.

Corollarily, and equally as clear, the construction of the bamboo fence

enclosing the disputed property and the moving of earthen dikes are not the
"clouds" or "doubts" which can be removed in an action for quieting of title.

Property Law Cases- Quieting of Title Page 7

 An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not be brought for the
purpose of settling a boundary dispute. The precedent on this matter cited by
the respondent Court in its Decision is herewith reproduced in full: 10

In Ashurst v. McKenzie (1890) 92 Ala. 484, 9 So. 262, where the

complainants' predecessor in title and the defendant had, during
their occupancy, destroyed and obliterated the boundary line
between their adjoining tracts of land, and there was now a dispute
as to its location, it was held that a bill did not lie to remove a
cloud on the complainants' title. The court said: "There is no
allegation or evidence of any muniment of title, proceeding, written
contract, or paper showing any color of title in the defendant,
which could cast a shadow on the title of complainants to any part
of the land; there is no overlapping of description in the muniments
held by either. The land of complainants and defendant join. The
line which separates them is in dispute and is to be determined by
evidence aliunde. Each admits that the other has title up to his line
wherever it may be, and the title papers of neither fix its precise
location. So that there is no paper the existence of which clouds the
title of either party, and nothing could be delivered up and canceled
under the decree of the court undertaking to remove a cloud.

Another similarly instructive precedent reported in the same reference is

also quoted below:

In Kilgannon v. Jenkinson (1883) 51 Mich. 240, 16 N.W. 390, the

court, dismissing a bill to quiet title, said: "The fundamental
dispute is about the correct position of the line between lots 3 and
7. The case is not one where a complainant in possession of a
specific piece of land, and a defendant out of possession, but
claiming some right or title, are contending as to which one has the
better right to that same parcel; but it is a case where the titles are
not opposed, and the basis and existence of all right and claim
depend simply upon where the original line runs. When that is once
settled, there can remain no semblance of claim or cloud to be
passed on, and the issue on that particular question is one regularly
triable at law. . .

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the instant petition
is hereby DENIED and the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioners.

Property Law Cases- Quieting of Title Page 8