Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)

Quieting of Title 3. Unauthorized or prohibited conveyances or


encumbrances by incapacitated persons
 Nature of the Action : It is an equitable action in rem to 4. Taxes levied on exempt property and apprarently valid
determine the condition of the ownership or rights to tax sales and conveyances of such property
immovable property and remove doubts thereon. 5. Conveyance which is executed by one whose title to the
Quasi in rem property has been div ested
 Classes: 6. Grant which is shown to have been subject to a

 Preventiv e – Art. 476 par. 2


condition precedent, where the CP has not been
performed.

 Remedial
7. A tax sale or tax deed which is invalid by reason of the
prior payment of the tax es in question

 There is present cloud on title which may be


prejudicial
8. A contract of sale which has been rescinded or forfeited
as a result of the purchaser’s abandonment of the
contract or by his defaul t in performance and

 The cloud is due to PRICE that is apparently


valid or effective
9. A conveyance by one who after executi on of the deed
was declared insane, there having been no lucid
interval from a date anterior to the conveyance.

 But in truth in fact, PRICE is IIVU Discus case of Titong v. CA – boundary dis pute, thus proper
action is survey, not qui eting of title

Notes: Although it appears that the actions are applicable only  Case: Titong vs CA: ISSUE: Whether Ti tong is the
to immovable property, Tolentino believes that similar to rightful owner of the subject property. HELD: NO . The
foreign j urisdictions , the action may apply to actions remedy for quieting of title may be avail ed of un der the
involving personal property like certificates of stock circumstances mentioned in Art 476 of the NCC wherein
Action is quasi in rem since it is against a person in respect of it says that action to qui et title may be made as a
the res. remedial or preventive measure. Under 476, a claimant
Cloud must have semblance of validity, not some cloud which in must show that there is an instrument, record, cl aim,
its face is i nvalid. encumbrance or proceeding which ca sts a cloud, doubt,
Action may be brought under Rule 63 (Declaratory Relief) question or shadow upon owner’s titl e to or interest in
Tolentino examples of a cloud: real property . The ground for filing a complaint for
1. title/lien which appears to have been procured by fraud, quieting title must be “instrument, record, claim,
deceit or misrepresentation encumbrance or proceeding.” In the case at bar, Titong
2. Forged i nstrument failed to allege that there was an instrument, cl aim etc
Prepared by Team Bessy  1
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)

be clouded over his property. Through his allegations,


what Titong imagined as clouds cast on his title were
Laurio’s all eged acts of physical intrusion into his  Requisites for Action :
purported property. The grounds mentioned are for A. The Plaintiff must have legal or equitable ti tle to, or
action for forcible entry and not quieting title. In interest in, the real property which is the subject matter
addition, the case was considered to be a boundary of the action.
dispute. The RTC and CA correctly held that when B. Although action is imprescriptible, it must not be barred
Titong sol d the 5.5 hectare land to Espinosa, his rights by laches.
and possession ceased and were transferred to Laurio C. There is duty to res tore be nefits and expenses. (Art.
upon its sale to the latter. Thus, it is now a contract of 480)
sale wherein i t is a contract transferring dominion and D. Not applicable in the following c ases: questions
other real rights in the thing sold. Titong also cannot involving interpretati on of documents, mere written or
rely on the claim of pres cription as ordinary acquisitive oral assertions of claims , boundary dispu tes, deeds by
prescription requires posses sion in good faith and with strangers to the ti tle, ins truments i nvalid on thei r face
just title for the time fixed by law.

 Notes: No need for Pl. to be in possession. – Art. 477


 Action to Quiet Title vs. Remove Cloud
 Action to Quiet Title: a. An action to put an end to Impresciptibilty of action – the right to maintain the suit is
vexatious litigation in respect to the property continuous, except that one who is not in posses sion must
b. Plaintiff asserts his own estate in the land, without invoke his remedy wi thin the statutory period for acquisitive
defining it, and avers that the claim is without
prescription, and laches may set in in case of inexcusable
foundation, and calls the defendant to set forth the
nature of his claim delay.
 Action to Remove Cloud: a. Intended to procure the
 Cases:
cancellation, delivery of , release of an instrument,
encumberance, or claim constituting a claim on 1. Olviga v. CA - Exampl e of Quieti ng of Title:
plaintiff’s title, and whic h may be used to injure or vex Pureza and his father cl eared, cultivated and
him in the enjoyment of his title planted on land then clas sified as forest land. When
the land was released for disposition, it was
b. Plaintiff declares his own ti tle + avers the source and
surveyed in the mane of Pureza (1956). Olviga
nature of the defendant’ s cla im and points out its defect,
protested the s urvey onl y with respect to the hal f
and prays that i t be decl ared void.
hectare portion, admi tting to Pureza’s ownership of
Prepared by Team Bessy  2
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)

the rest of the land. Pureza filed a home stead with the terms of the Contract to Sell. His balance
applcation over Lot 13. However, it was never acted was 10,161. Heirs of Francisco filed an action for
upon. In 1961, Pureza’s rights were transferred to specific performance agains t the Pingols to compel
Cornlia Glor. In 1967, Ol viga was able to obtain them to accept the balance and to execute the deed
registered title over the said lot. Olviga transferred of transfer to them. Pingols assert that there was no
the land to his children who never possesed the sale, and that the failure of Francisco to pay wi thin
property. Corneli a Glor and her children filed an the time s tipulated effectively cancelled the
action to quiet thei r title over the property. Granted contract to sell. TC dismis sed complaint filed by
by the RTC, upheld by the CA. Held: petition Donascos. CA reversed and ordered the Pingol to
dismissed. RTC, CA upheld. Action to QT has not accept the money and uphol ding the deed of
prescribed. Normally, ac tion based n trust is 10 absolute sale. Held: Acti on was really one for
years from the date of registration of the deed or the quieting title. CA upheld. The ins trument is a
date of issuance of CTC over the property, but the contract of sale. There was actual (transfer of
period applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession) and constructive (signing of the deed).
possession. Si nce Glor has remained in possession A deed of sale is absolute in nature although
of the property, the acti on ahs ot yet prescribed. denominated as a Deed of Conditional sale where
Glor and their predecess ors -in-interest were in there is no stipulation i n the deed that title to the
actual possessi on of the property since 1950. Their property is sold and res erved in the seller until the
undisturbed possession gave them the continuing full payment of the price nor is there a stipul ation
right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the the vendor has a right to unilaterally cancel the
the nature of the advers e claim of the Olvigas, who contract the moment the buyer fails to pay within a
disturbed their possessi on in 1961. fixed peri od. The instrument signed by Pingol and
Donasco only mandates payment of interest i n cas e
2. Pingol v. Domingo: Pingol sold one -half of an payment id delayed. Since we have a contract of
undivided portion of land to Francisco Donasco. The absolute sale, the ownership of the lot was
document states that in addition to the advance of transferred upon ac tual and constructive delivery.
2,000.00, the balance of 18,530.00 shall be paid in The delivery of the land divested the vendor of
72 months. After pay ment of 2,000.00, Francisco ownership over the same and he cannot revocer title
was given possession of the property . In 1972, unless ther e is a j udicial or notaria l demand to
Francisco died, howev er, he was not able to comply rescind (Art. 1592). Acti on is for quieti ng of title. A
Prepared by Team Bessy  3
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)

cloud has been cast on the title of the Donascos. payment by Cristobal of the full purchase price.
Despite the fact that the title had been transferred to Failure to comply with this obligation s uspends the
them, the Pingols refuse to accept payment and transfer of ownership. The mere issuance of titl e to
insists that thei r obligati on to transfer title has been Cristobal does not vest ownershi p in her. Portic s
rendered ineffective. There is no prescription, they were in conti nuous poss ession of the property .
being in possession of the property.

3. Portic v. Cristobal: Portics acquired land from


Endrosal am et al wi th the understanding that the
 Outline:
Protics will assume t he mortgage payments to SSS.
1. Differences between acti on to quiet title and acti on
Portics defaulted and the property was foreclosed to remove cloud and prevent a cloud
and a certificate of sale was issued in favor of SSS. 2. Prescription of action – Imprescriptibl e if plaintiff in
Within the redemption period, property was sold to possession; otherwise, within period for acc ion
the Cristobals . Sal e was conditioned on full publiciana and accion reinvendicatoria (Olviga v.
payment of the purchase pri ce. Cristobals were not CA; Pingol v. CA)
able to complete payment to Portics. However, the 3. Who are entitled to bring action (Rule 64 Sec 1 par
2)
Endrosal am and Cris tobal executed a deed of
absolute sale and Cristobal was able to get TCT  Notes : + There is a cloud on title to real property or any
under their name. Portic s filed an action to quiet interest to real property
title allegi ng that they di d not lose o wnership + Plaintiff has legal or equitable title to or interest in
because the Cristobals failed to comply with the the property
conditions of the s ale. RTC g ranted the action, CA + Instrument, rec ord, cl aim, etc must be valid and
Reversed. Held. SC Rev erses CA. Action was for binding on its face but i n truth and i n fact inv ali d,
ineffective, voidable or unenforceable
quieting of title. General ly, the registered owner of
+ Plainti ff must return benefits from defendant
the property is the proper party to bring an a ction to (titong v. CA)
quiet title. However, the remedy may also be availed + Actions to quiet title are proceedings quasi in rem
of by a person other than the registered owner, the (Sps. Portie v. Cris tobal )
title being only an evidence of ownership, not an
instrument for conferring ownership. The Portics
retained ownership of the property pending the

Prepared by Team Bessy  4