IV.
Quieting of Title
Case Details
Uberas vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 48268; October 30, 1978
Petitioner: Heirs of Segundo Uberas and Heirs
of Albino Uberas
Respondent: Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental, Alejandra Uberas, Soledad Uberas,
Milagros Uberas, Rolando Uberas, Wilfredo
Uberas, Selma Uberas, Pedro Uberas Jr.
Ponente: Teehankee, J.
Sapto vs Fabiano
GR No. 11285; May 16, 1958
Plaintiff-Appellants: Vicente Sapto, Laureana
Sapto
Defendant-Appellee: Apolonio Fabiana
Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L, J.
Facts
 Upon the death of the Spouses Juan Uberas and Dominga
Mendoza, his heir, Pedro Uberas, by means of fraud and deceit,
persuaded his sister Alejandra, Uberas, to sign a declaration of
heirship, stating falsely that they were the only heirs of the
deceased, adjudicating to themselves the whole property in
question.
 Pedro later caused her sister to sign a deed of absolute sale of her
undivided (1/2) portion of the lot in favor of Pedro, and induced
her to sign a general power of attorney in favor of Pedro’s son,
for the latter to sell or encumber the property.
 The petitioners filed an action for quieting of title against the
respondents.
 The CFI of Negros Occidental dismissed the complaint on the
ground of prescription.
 On appeal, the CA affirmed the lower Court’s decision.
 Hence, the petition.
 Samuel and Constancio Sapto executed a deed of sale of a portion
of four hectares of the land aforementioned in favor of defendant
Apolonio Fabiano.
 The sale was never registered, but possession of the land was
conveyed and transferred to Fabiano.
 The widow of Samuel Sapto sought for the recovery of the parcel
of land in the CFI of Davao.
 RTC ruled that the sale was binding although not registered and
ordered plaintiffs to execute a deed of conveyance.
 On appeal, the appellants contend that the action to obtain it had
long prescribed, twenty years have elapsed since the original
sale.
Issue/Held/Doctrine
Issue: Whether or not the action for quieting of title had prescribed.
 No.
 Respondent court manifestly failed to take into account the
averments of petitioners’ complaint that they “and defendants are
co-owners and possessors of the property” and that “the malicious
and illegal acts committed by defendants were known to the
plaintiffs only during this year 1977, after Soledad Rapiz and her
children were already claiming full ownership and possession of the
whole of the property,” as set forth specifically in paragraph 20 of
their complaint below.
 Respondent court could not peremptorily disregard this averment
without trial and receiving the parties’ proofs.
 It is obvious that if such averment be duly established at the trial by
petitioners-plaintiffs, the period for prescription, even under
respondent court’s theory of the case in its order, would only have
commenced in 1977 and prescription could not lie.
Issue: Whether or not the action for quieting of title had prescribed.
 No.
 Actually the action for conveyance was one to quiet title, i.e., to
remove the cloud cast upon appellee's ownership by the refusal of
the appellants to recognize the sale made by their predecessors.
 This action accrued only when appellants initiated their suit to
recover the land in 1954.
 Furthermore, it is an established rule of American jurisprudence
(made applicable in this jurisdiction by Art. 480 of the New Civil
Code) that actions to quiet title to property in the possession of the
plaintiff are imprescriptible (44 Am. Jur. p. 47; Cooper vs. Rhea, 39
L. R. A. 930; Inland Empire Land Co. vs. Grant County, 138 Wash.
439, 245 Pac. 14).
Spouses Benito vs. Ruiz
GR 149906; December 26, 2002
Petitioner: Spouses Horacio and Felisa
Benito
Respondent: Agapita Saquitan-Ruiz
Ponente: Panganiban, J.
G.R. No. 141970. September 10,
2001.*
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, petitioner, vs.
Hon. FLORO T. ALEJO, in His
Capacity as Presiding Judge of
Branch 172 of the Regional Trial
Court of Valenzuela; and SY TAN
SE, represented by his Attorney-in-
Fact, SIAN SUAT NGO,
respondents.
 Spouses Benito sold to Agapita Ruiz a parcel of land.
 However, they failed to deliver or cause the issuance of a
Certificate of Title.
 The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground of
prescription, contending that action to invalidate title certificates
on the ground of fraud prescribes upon the expiration of one year
from the entry of the decree of registration.
 Upon appeal, reversing the RTC, the CA held that respondent’s
second cause of action was for reconveyance, not for the
invalidation of certificates of title.
 As long as the property was still in the name of the person who
had caused the wrongful registration, and as long as it had not
yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value, an action for
reconveyance was still available.
Quick Summary: Spouses Raul and Cristina
Acompanado executed a real estate mortgage in favor of
petitioner which was foreclosed upon failure by the
former to pay its obligations. However, in a previous case
filed by the respondent, without the petitioner as a party,
the RTC ruled that the subject land's title was null and
void. Petitioner filed for annulment of decision of the
RTC. CA dismissed on the ground that the proper remedy
is quieting of title, and not annulment of decision. SC
reversed ruling that it is not quieting of title.
Issue: Whether or not the action has prescribed.
 No.
 Finally, we note that respondent is in possession of the disputed
property.17
 If a person claiming to be the owner of a wrongfully registered parcel
of land is in actual possession, the right to seek reconveyance does
not prescribe.18
 A petition for the quieting of title, although essentially an action for
reconveyance, should not be dismissed on the ground of
prescription, if it is alleged that the plaintiff is in possession of the
property.
Same; Actions; An action for quieting of title is filed
only when there is a cloud on title to real property
or any interest therein.—
Equally important, an action for quieting of title is
filed only when there is a cloud on title to real
property or any interest therein. As defined, a
“cloud on title is a semblance of title which
appears in some legal form but which is in fact
unfounded.” In this case, the subject judgment
cannot be considered as a cloud on petitioner’s
title or interest over the real property covered by
TCT No. V-41319, which does not even have a
semblance of being a title.
G.R. No. 123509. March 14, 2000.*
LUCIO ROBLES, EMETERIA
ROBLES, ALUDIA ROBLES and
EMILIO ROBLES, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, Spouses
VIRGILIO SANTOS and BABY
RUTH CRUZ, RURAL BANK OF
CARDONA, Inc., HILARIO
ROBLES, ALBERTO PALAD, JR. in
his capacity as Director of Lands, and
JOSE MAULEON in his capacity as
District Land Officer of the Bureau of
Lands, respondents.
Quick Summary: The predecessors-in-interest of the
plaintiff were the owners of the land in question. Upon
his death, the cultivation was assigned to Lucio Robles,
and payment of taxes was to Hilario Robles. However, in
the course of time, the property ended up to the Spouses
Santos due to the property being foreclosed in a
mortgage. A Free Patent was issued to the Spouses
Santos. Petitioners sought recovery of possession and
declaration for nullity on a Free Patent issued to Spouses
Santos. RTC affirmed the prayer. CA, reversed the
decision on the ground that the plaintiffs do not have any
right on the title. SC reversed CA, on the ground that the
co-ownership was not repudiated, hence, plaintiffs still
has right on the title. Action for quieting of title was
granted.
Based on the above definition, an action to quiet
title is a common-law remedy for the removal of
any cloud or doubt or uncertainty on the title to real
property. It is essential for the plaintiff or
complainant to have a legal or an equitable title to
or interest in the real property which is the subject
matter of the action. Also, the deed, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding that is being alleged
as a cloud on plaintiff’s title must be shown to be
in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
Therefore, there is merit to the contention of the
petitioners that Hilario mortgaged the disputed
property to the Rural Bank of Cardona in his
capacity as a mere co-owner thereof. Clearly, the
said transaction did not divest them of title to the
property at the time of the institution of the
Complaint for quieting of title.
G.R. No. 148943. August 15, 2002.*
AGNES GAPACAN, EUGENIA
GAPACAN-KIAKI and MARILYN
GAPACAN, petitioners, vs.
MARIA GAPACAN OMIPET,
respondent.
G.R. No. 117389. May 11, 1995.*
ROMEO V. OBLEA and RAMON S.
MELENCIO, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and JUAN S.
ESTEBAN, respondents.
Quick Summary: Maria Omipet and Antonio Gapacan
are the children of Paicat Gapacan who possessed an
unregistered land. Antonio left to work in the mines, and
Maria was left behind to take care of his father and took
the cultivation of the property. When Antonio returned,
he executed an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property, and
subsequently paid for the Tax Declaration in his name.
Maria filed a complaint for Quieting of Title. RTC
dismissed the complaint and adjudged the petitioners as
the rightful owners of the lot. CA assailed the decision of
RTC contending that the property is equally owned by
the siblings. SC affirmed the appellate court's decision.
Quick Summary: The subject land were registered in
the name of Ramon, Pura, and Wilfredo and Mariabelle
M. Wico. Juan Esteban subsequently bought the land
from the administratrix of the land, and who
subsequently leased it to Romeo Oblea. Esteban filed a
case for ejectment against Oblea. MTC ruled in favor of
Esteban, which was affirmed by the RTC. Subsequently,
the lot was sold to Oblea. An action for quieting of title
was filed by Oblea against Esteban. Later, the ejectment
case was appealed to the CA which was dismissed.
Hence, MTC demanded the execution of the ejectment.
The ejectment was contested in the RTC, which the
Executive Judge gave its order to stop the execution on
the ground that an action for quieting of title is pending.
But on appeal, the order of the Executive Judge was
reversed, on the ground that the ejectment case had
long been executory and final. SC affirmed the decision
of the CA, ruling that an action for quieting of title is not
a valid reason to halt the execution of an ejectment.
Article 476 of the Civil Code provides that an action
to quiet title may be brought when there exists a
cloud on the title to real property or any interest
therein. In the early case of Bautista v. Exconde,
we held that a property owner whose property
rights were being disturbed may ask a competent
court for a proper determination of the respective
rights of the party-claimants, not only to place
things in their proper place, that is, to require the
one who has no right to refrain from acts injurious
to the peaceful enjoyment of the property not only
of the rightful owner but also for the benefit of both
with the view of dissipating any cloud of doubt over
the property.
Similarly, the fact that petitioners instituted a
separate action for quieting of title is not a valid
reason for defeating the execution of the summary
remedy of ejectment. On the contrary, it bolsters
the conclusion that the eviction case did not deal
with the issue of ownership which was precisely the
subject matter of the action for quieting of title
before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City.
With the finality of the decision in the ejectment
case, execution in favor of the prevailing party has
become a matter of right; its implementation
mandatory. It cannot be avoided.
 G.R. No. 95748. November 21,
1996.*
ANASTACIA VDA. DE AVILES, ET
AL., petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and CAMILO
AVILES, respondents.
Quick Summary: Upon the death of their father,
the property in question was shared among the
siblings of the petitioner. Respondent built a bamboo
fence and moved the earthen dikes placed on the
share of Eduardo Aviles. A portion of petitioner's
land was therefore encroached. The petitioners filed
a case for quieting of title. Trial Court dismissed the
case on the ground that the special civil action for
quieting of title is not the proper remedy, but rather
an ejectment suit. CA and SC affirmed the lower
court's decision.
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 x x x evidence of any muniment
of title, proceeding, written contract, x x x,” 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.
 No. L-20954. May 24, 1967. Quick Summary: Teodoro Hussain sold a parcel of An action to quiet title, brought by a person who is
land to Chichirita on a condition that the former has in possession of the property, is imprescriptible.
ELIAS GALLAR, plaintiff-appellee, a right to redeem the same within 6 years. Days However, if the plaintiff is not in possession, the
vs. after the sale, Chichirita sold the property to action would prescribe within the proper
HERMENEGILDA HUSAIN, ET AL., Graciana Hussain, as if Graciana was acting to prescriptive period.
defendants. BONIFACIO HUSAIN, redeem the property, who in turn sold to Elias
defendant-appellant. Gallar. Gallar filed an action in the CFI to compel the
heirs of Teodoro to execute a deed of conveyance,
which was granted by the Court. The Hussains filed
an appeal to the Court on the ground that the action
for quieting of title had prescribed. SC affirmed the
decision of the CFI, since Gallar was in possession of
the property, hence the action is imprescriptible.
G. R. No. 102909. September 6, Quick Summary: Vicente Pingol executed a sale in Although the private respondents’ complaint before
1993.* favor of Francisco Donasco to 1/2 portion of an the trial court was denominated as one for specific
undivided parcel of land. Donasco immediately took performance, it is in effect an action to quiet title.
SPOUSES VICENTE and LOURDES possession of the property, but failed to pay the
PINGOL, petitioners, vs. installments on 1972. Upon Donasco's death in A vendee in an oral contract to convey land who
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and 1984, his heirs filed an action for specific had made part payment thereof, entered upon the
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO N. performance in the RTC against Pingol to compel the land and had made valuable improvements
DONASCO, namely: MELINDA D. latter to accept the payment for the unpaid balance thereon, is entitled to bring suit to clear his title
PELAYO, MARIETTA D. SINGSON, of the sale, and for the court to issue a writ of against the vendor who had refused to transfer the
MYRNA D. CUEVAS, NATIVIDAD D. preliminary injunction to prevent Pingol from title to him. It is not necessary that the vendee has
PELAYO, YOLANDA D. CACERES and encroaching the property. RTC ruled in favor of an absolute title, an equitable title being sufficient
MARY DONASCO, respondents. Pingol, on the ground that the title did not pass to to clothe him with personality to bring an action to
Donasco because the sale was not consummated, quiet title.
and that the action was barred because of
prescription. The CA reversed the decision, ordering
Pingol to accept the payment but with legal interest
thereon, and that the action, which is deemed as an
action to quiet title, did not prescribed since the

G.R. No. 111141. March 6, 1998.*
MARIO Z. TITONG, petitioner, vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS (4th Division),
VICTORICO LAURIO and
ANGELES LAURIO, respondents.
property is in possession of Donasco. SC affirmed
the CA's decision modifying the legal interest to be
paid.
Quick Summary: Petitioner alleges that he is the
owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area
of 3.28 has. He contends that on three separate
occasions, the respondent forcibly entered the place
with the latter's laborer to plow on the area,
claiming ownership over the same. Respondent
contended that the property in dispute form part of
an agricultural land with an area of 5.5 has, which
they purchased from their predecessors-in-interest,
Pablo Espinosa. Petitioner filed an action in the RTC
for quieting of title against the respondent which the
Court ruled in favor of the respondents. On appeal,
the CA affirmed the lower Court's decision. SC
affirmed CA's decision, on the ground that the
petitioner failed to prove that there is a cloud on the
title due to an instrument, claim, record,
encumbrance or proceeding. The proper action
At the outset, we hold that the instant petition must
be denied for the reason that the lower court
should have outrightly dismissed the complaint for
quieting of title. The remedy of quieting of title may
be availed of under the circumstances enumerated
in the Civil Code: “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 title to real property or any interest
therein.” Under this provision, a claimant must
show that there is an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which constitutes or
should be for forcible entry, and not for quieting of
title.
casts a cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon the
owner’s title to or interest in real property. The
ground or reason for filing a complaint for quieting
of title must therefore be “an instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding.” Under the
maxim expresio unius est exclusio alterius, these
grounds are exclusive so that other reasons outside
of the purview of these reasons may not be
considered valid for the same action.
He prayed that, aside from issuing a writ or
preliminary injunction enjoining private
respondents and their hired laborers from intruding
into the land, the court should declare him “the true
and absolute owner” thereof. Hence, through his
allegations, what petitioner imagined as clouds cast
on his title to the property were private
respondents’ alleged acts of physical intrusion into
his purported property. Clearly, the acts alleged
may be considered grounds for an action for
forcible entry but definitely not one for quieting of
title.
G.R. No. 96644. June 17, 1994.*
HEIRS OF JUAN OCLARIT,
namely: FRANCISCA VDA. DE
OCLARIT, SOFRONIO OCLARIT,
BELACIO OCLARIT, RUFINO
OCLARIT, JUANA OCLARIT DE
MACALOS, assisted by her husband
HILARIO MACALOS, FELISA OCLARIT
DE LACRE, assisted by her husband,
COSME LACRE; HEIRS OF PAULA
OCLARIT DE OCANG, namely:
PETRA OCANG and ALFREDO
OCANG, ANGELA OCLARIT DE
OCANG, assisted by her husband,
CARLOS OCANG, EPIFANIA OCLARIT
DE ALMODOBAL, assisted by her
husband, URBANO ALMODOBAL,
CRESENCIA OCLARIT DE IVARRETA,
assisted by her husband, LUCRESIO
IVARRETA, NARCISA OCLARIT DE
CAGAS, assisted by her husband,
JUAN CAGAS, and JUSTO OCLARIT,
petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and
ZACARIAS BALASABAS,
respondents.
Quick Summary: Juan Oclarit, petitioner's
predecessors-in-interest, purchased a lot from Martin
Macalos, without any permanent landmark or
boundary. The heirs of Oclarit, filed an action in the
CFI for quieting of title against the respondent, on
the ground that the latter changed the markings in
the coconut trees from "J.O." to "F.G.", the latter the
initials of the respondent's mother Felipa Gales, thus
casting a cloud over their title. The Court ordered
the commissioner to conduct a relocation survey of
the lot and found that the boundaries mentioned in
the Tax Declaration of the Oclarit were different
from its findings. The CFI ruled in favor of the
respondents on the ground that the description of
boundaries in the claim of the Oclarits were different
from the finding of the Commissioner, and that their
claim was in excess of what supposed to be theirs.
On appeal, the CFI found that the Oclarit failed to
prove that they have a legal or equitable title over
the lot in question. CA, affirmed the dismissal made
by the CFI, but reversed the decision that the
respondents are the real owners of the property. SC
affirmed the CAs decision on the ground that
petitioner's claim that the property is different to
that of the respondents claim is antithetical to the
filing of an action for quieting of title, hence
respondent did not cast a cloud on its property.
It was precisely for the purpose of pointing out with
particularity the parcels of land involved that the
lower court appointed a commissioner whose
findings may be adopted in toto by the trial court
(See: Apurillo v. Garciano, 28 SCRA 1054). Had the
petitioners been in possession of solid evidence
that the parcels of land they are claiming are “alien”
or “foreign” to those declared by private
respondent as his, they should have questioned the
commissioner’s report which was based on the
relocation survey and ocular inspection which were
conducted in their presence. Moreover, petitioners’
claim that their property is different from those of
private respondent’s is indeed antithetical to their
filing of the complaint for quieting of title—there
would not have been any basis for claiming that
private respondent cast a cloud of doubt to their
title over their two parcels of land.
More, the deed of sale wherein Martin Macalos
conveyed to Oclarit a parcel of land did not even
indicate with particularity the area of the land
covered thereby. This explains why they
indiscriminately pointed at boundaries which are
even beyond what could have been bought by
Oclarit. Although it is true that what defines a
piece of land is not the area mentioned in its
description but the boundaries therein laid down
(Vda. de Tan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 213
SCRA 95 [1992]), in controversial cases as in this
case where there appears to be an overlapping of
boundaries, the actual size of the property gains

G.R. No. 144208. September 11,
2007.*
EFREN TANDOG, FELIX TANDOG,
FELIPE TANDOG, JOSEFINO
TANDOG, HELEN TANDOG,
CATALINA TANDOG, ROMEO
TANDOG, DOMINGO TANDOG,
CATALINA SANTOS, MARIA
BAUTISTA CATANYAG, ARTEMIO
CATANYAG, ANGELES
CATANYAG, APOLONIA
CATANYAG, ADORACION
CATANYAG, ARCELY CATANYAG,
and AMPARO CATANYAG, all
represented by EFREN TANDOG,
petitioners, vs.
Quick Summary: Petitioners trace their rights from
Casimiro Policarpio. Upon their judicial registration of
the property, they found out that the property had
been occupied by the respondents. Petitioners filed
an action to quiet title on the ground that
respondents obtained title over the lot through
fraud. Respondents answered that they were in
open and continuous possession of the land since
time immemorial. RTC dismissed the complaint. CA
affirmed the RTCs decision on the ground that
petitioner failed to show that a cloud casts over their
title based on an instrument, claim, encumbrance,
record or title. SC affirmed the lower court's decision
on the ground that petitioner failed to prove that
respondent's adverse possession casts a cloud on
their title over the lot.
importance. Thus, the lower court correctly
stressed that it would have done petitioners some
good had they correctly specified even in their tax
declarations the areas of the land they were
claiming. It is well settled that anyone who claims
that he has a better right to the property, must
prove both ownership and identity of the said
property (Beo v. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 574
[1991], citing Flores v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 178 SCRA 717 [1989]). An area delimited
by boundaries properly identifies a parcel of land.
As a general rule, a cloud which may be removed
by suit to quiet title is not created by mere verbal
or parol assertion of ownership of or an interest in
property. This rule is subject to qualification, where
there is a written or factual basis for the asserted
right. Thus, a claim of right based on acquisitive
prescription or adverse possession has been held
to constitute a removable cloud on title.
RENATO MACAPAGAL, SPOUSES
ALFONSO and MARINA
CALDERON, and the LANDS
MANAGEMENT BUREAU,
respondents.
G.R. No. 178606. December 15,
2009.*
THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF
NORTHERN PHILIPPINES, rep. by
VICTOR D. ANANAYO, Convention
Secretary, petitioner, vs.
THE DISTRICT ENGINEER,
MOUNTAIN PROVINCE
ENGINEERING DISTRICT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS [MPED-
DPWH], respondent.
Quick Summary: EDNP constructed a church
building for its congregation on the lot in question.
However, MPED-DPWH started building the
foundations for the gymnasium. EDNP filed a
complaint for forcible entry with a prayer for TRO in
the MCTC. The MCTC ruled in favor of EDNP. RTC
affirmed the decision of the MCTC. Upon appeal in
the CA, the appellate court reversed the lower
courts' decision on the ground that the plaintiff failed
to implead the people of Barangay Poblacion as
indispensable parties of the case. RTC reversed the
decision of the CA, and affirmed the decision of the
MCTC and RTC.
Respondent District Engineer invokes the decision
of the RTC in Civil Case 787 that the people of
Barangay Poblacion owned the lot in question. But
the case was for quieting of title that petitioner
EDNP filed in court. The RTC dismissed the action
based on EDNP’s failure to implead the people of
Barangay Poblacion as indispensable parties whom
the court believed had a valid claim to the property
in dispute. Not being a party to that action, the
people of Barangay Poblacion cannot claim that
they should be deemed to have obtained a
judgment of ownership of the land in their favor.
G.R. No. 159788. December 23,
2009.*
SOTERO ROY LEONERO,
RODOLFO LIM, ISIDORO A.
PADILLA, JR., AMY ROSE FISMA,
and NORMA CABUYO, petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES MARCELINO B. BARBA
and FORTUNA MARCOS-BARBA,
represented by IMELDA N.
FORONDO, and REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY,
respondents.
Quick Summary: Petitioners filed an action for
quieting of title on the ground that the title in
question had been declared null and void in a Partial
Decision, however, the respondents were not parties
to the said Partial Decision. RTC dismissed the
principal action for quieting of title. The CA affirmed
the lower court's decision on the ground that the
Partial Decision has no legal effect to the respondent
since they were not parties to that case. SC affirmed
the CA's decision.
Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree
provides that a certificate of title cannot be subject
to collateral attack and can only be altered,
modified or cancelled in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law. In Foster-Gallego v. Galang,
435 SCRA 275 (2004), the Court held that the issue
of whether a title was procured by falsification or
fraud should be raised in an action expressly
instituted for the purpose, not in an action for
quieting of title. Again, in Vda. de Gualberto v. Go,
463 SCRA 671 (2005), the Court held that the
validity of a certificate of title cannot be assailed in
an action for quieting of title; an action for
annulment of title is the more appropriate remedy
to seek the cancellation of a certificate of title.
Hence, herein petitioners’ action for quieting of title
is a mere collateral attack against respondents’ TCT
Nos. 59721, 59725, 59726 and 59727, and is
proscribed by the law.