PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
Quieting of Title
 Nature of the Action : It is an equitable action in rem to
determine the condition of the ownership or rights to
immovable property and remove doubts thereon.
Quasi in rem
 Classes:
 Preventiv e – Art. 476 par. 2
 Remedial
 There is present cloud on title which may be
prejudicial
 The cloud is due to PRICE that is apparently
valid or effective
 But in truth in fact, PRICE is IIVU
Notes: Although it appears that the actions are applicable only
to immovable property, Tolentino believes that similar to
foreign j urisdictions , the action may apply to actions
involving personal property like certificates of stock
Action is quasi in rem since it is against a person in respect of
the res.
Cloud must have semblance of validity, not some cloud which in
its face is i nvalid.
Action may be brought under Rule 63 (Declaratory Relief)
Tolentino examples of a cloud:
1. title/lien which appears to have been procured by fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation
2. Forged i nstrument
3. Unauthorized or prohibited conveyances or
encumbrances by incapacitated persons
4. Taxes levied on exempt property and apprarently valid
tax sales and conveyances of such property
5. Conveyance which is executed by one whose title to the
property has been div ested
6. Grant which is shown to have been subject to a
condition precedent, where the CP has not been
performed.
7. A tax sale or tax deed which is invalid by reason of the
prior payment of the tax es in question
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 A contract of sale which has been rescinded or forfeited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
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.
Discus case of Titong v. CA – boundary dis pute, thus proper
action is survey, not qui eting of title
 Case: Titong vs CA: ISSUE: Whether Ti tong is the
rightful owner of the subject property. HELD: NO . The
remedy for quieting of title may be avail ed of un der the
circumstances mentioned in Art 476 of the NCC wherein
it says that action to qui et title may be made as a
remedial or preventive measure. Under 476, a claimant
must show that there is an instrument, record, cl aim,
encumbrance or proceeding which ca sts a cloud, doubt,
question or shadow upon owner’s titl e to or interest in
real property . The ground for filing a complaint for
quieting title must be “instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding.” In the case at bar, Titong
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
purported property. The grounds mentioned are for
action for forcible entry and not quieting title. In
addition, the case was considered to be a boundary
dispute. The RTC and CA correctly held that when
Titong sol d the 5.5 hectare land to Espinosa, his rights
and possession ceased and were transferred to Laurio
upon its sale to the latter. Thus, it is now a contract of
sale wherein i t is a contract transferring dominion and
other real rights in the thing sold. Titong also cannot
rely on the claim of pres cription as ordinary acquisitive
prescription requires posses sion in good faith and with
just title for the time fixed by law.
 Action to Quiet Title vs. Remove Cloud
 Action to Quiet Title: a. An action to put an end to
vexatious litigation in respect to the property
b. Plaintiff asserts his own estate in the land, without
defining it, and avers that the claim is without
foundation, and calls the defendant to set forth the
nature of his claim
 Action to Remove Cloud: a. Intended to procure the
cancellation, delivery of , release of an instrument,
encumberance, or claim constituting a claim on
plaintiff’s title, and whic h may be used to injure or vex
him in the enjoyment of his title
b. Plaintiff declares his own ti tle + avers the source and
nature of the defendant’ s cla im and points out its defect,
and prays that i t be decl ared void.
 Requisites for Action :
A. The Plaintiff must have legal or equitable ti tle to, or
interest in, the real property which is the subject matter
of the action.
B. Although action is imprescriptible, it must not be barred
by laches.
C. There is duty to res tore be nefits and expenses. (Art.
480)
D. Not applicable in the following c ases: questions
involving interpretati on of documents, mere written or
oral assertions of claims , boundary dispu tes, deeds by
strangers to the ti tle, ins truments i nvalid on thei r face
 Notes: No need for Pl. to be in possession. – Art. 477
Impresciptibilty of action – the right to maintain the suit is
continuous, except that one who is not in posses sion must
invoke his remedy wi thin the statutory period for acquisitive
prescription, and laches may set in in case of inexcusable
delay.
 Cases:
1. Olviga v. CA - Exampl e of Quieti ng of Title:
Pureza and his father cl eared, cultivated and
planted on land then clas sified as forest land. When
the land was released for disposition, it was
surveyed in the mane of Pureza (1956). Olviga
protested the s urvey onl y with respect to the hal f
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
applcation over Lot 13. However, it was never acted
upon. In 1961, Pureza’s rights were transferred to
Cornlia Glor. In 1967, Ol viga was able to obtain
registered title over the said lot. Olviga transferred
the land to his children who never possesed the
property. Corneli a Glor and her children filed an
action to quiet thei r title over the property. Granted
by the RTC, upheld by the CA. Held: petition
dismissed. RTC, CA upheld. Action to QT has not
prescribed. Normally, ac tion based n trust is 10
years from the date of registration of the deed or the
date of issuance of CTC over the property, but the
period applies only when the plaintiff is not in
possession. Si nce Glor has remained in possession
of the property, the acti on ahs ot yet prescribed.
Glor and their predecess ors -in-interest were in
actual possessi on of the property since 1950. Their
undisturbed possession gave them the continuing
right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine
the nature of the advers e claim of the Olvigas, who
disturbed their possessi on in 1961.
2. Pingol v. Domingo: Pingol sold one -half of an
undivided portion of land to Francisco Donasco. The
document states that in addition to the advance of
2,000.00, the balance of 18,530.00 shall be paid in
72 months. After pay ment of 2,000.00, Francisco
was given possession of the property . In 1972,
Francisco died, howev er, he was not able to comply
with the terms of the Contract to Sell. His balance
was 10,161. Heirs of Francisco filed an action for
specific performance agains t the Pingols to compel
them to accept the balance and to execute the deed
of transfer to them. Pingols assert that there was no
sale, and that the failure of Francisco to pay wi thin
the time s tipulated effectively cancelled the
contract to sell. TC dismis sed complaint filed by
Donascos. CA reversed and ordered the Pingol to
accept the money and uphol ding the deed of
absolute sale. Held: Acti on was really one for
quieting title. CA upheld. The ins trument is a
contract of sale. There was actual (transfer of
possession) and constructive (signing of the deed).
A deed of sale is absolute in nature although
denominated as a Deed of Conditional sale where
there is no stipulation i n the deed that title to the
property is sold and res erved in the seller until the
full payment of the price nor is there a stipul ation
the the vendor has a right to unilaterally cancel the
contract the moment the buyer fails to pay within a
fixed peri od. The instrument signed by Pingol and
Donasco only mandates payment of interest i n cas e
payment id delayed. Since we have a contract of
absolute sale, the ownership of the lot was
transferred upon ac tual and constructive delivery.
The delivery of the land divested the vendor of
ownership over the same and he cannot revocer title
unless ther e is a j udicial or notaria l demand to
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.
Despite the fact that the title had been transferred to
them, the Pingols refuse to accept payment and
insists that thei r obligati on to transfer title has been
rendered ineffective. There is no prescription, they
being in possession of the property.
3. Portic v. Cristobal: Portics acquired land from
Endrosal am et al wi th the understanding that the
Protics will assume t he mortgage payments to SSS.
Portics defaulted and the property was foreclosed
and a certificate of sale was issued in favor of SSS.
Within the redemption period, property was sold to
the Cristobals . Sal e was conditioned on full
payment of the purchase pri ce. Cristobals were not
able to complete payment to Portics. However, the
Endrosal am and Cris tobal executed a deed of
absolute sale and Cristobal was able to get TCT
under their name. Portic s filed an action to quiet
title allegi ng that they di d not lose o wnership
because the Cristobals failed to comply with the
conditions of the s ale. RTC g ranted the action, CA
Reversed. Held. SC Rev erses CA. Action was for
quieting of title. General ly, the registered owner of
the property is the proper party to bring an a ction to
quiet title. However, the remedy may also be availed
of by a person other than the registered owner, the
title being only an evidence of ownership, not an
instrument for conferring ownership. The Portics
retained ownership of the property pending the
payment by Cristobal of the full purchase price.
Failure to comply with this obligation s uspends the
transfer of ownership. The mere issuance of titl e to
Cristobal does not vest ownershi p in her. Portic s
were in conti nuous poss ession of the property .
 Outline:
1. Differences between acti on to quiet title and acti on
to remove cloud and prevent a cloud
2. Prescription of action – Imprescriptibl e if plaintiff in
possession; otherwise, within period for acc ion
publiciana and accion reinvendicatoria (Olviga v.
CA; Pingol v. CA)
3. Who are entitled to bring action (Rule 64 Sec 1 par
2)
 Notes : + There is a cloud on title to real property or any
interest to real property
+ Plaintiff has legal or equitable title to or interest in
the property
+ Instrument, rec ord, cl aim, etc must be valid and
binding on its face but i n truth and i n fact inv ali d,
ineffective, voidable or unenforceable
+ Plainti ff must return benefits from defendant
(titong v. CA)
+ Actions to quiet title are proceedings quasi in rem
(Sps. Portie v. Cris tobal )
Prepared by Team Bessy  4