Professional Documents
Culture Documents
from Italy, she was surprised to learn from the Registry of Deeds for
Quezon City that on April 14, 1995, the property in question was sold
by defendant Ex-Officio Sheriff of Quezon City to defendants Sps.
Roa as the highest bidder for the price and consideration of
P511,000.00.
ts Sps. Roa as the highest bidder
n April 14, 1995, the property in question was sold by defendant ExOfficio Sheriff of Quezon City to defendan Issue: Whether the
petitioners action was subject to prescription or not
Held:
on City.
Sometime March of 1999, duwas essentially m, encumbrance, or
proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and
in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
In an order3 dated February 3, 2000, the RTC granted the motion.
Characterizing the suit as an action "upon an injury to the rights of
the plaintiff" which, according to Article 1146 of the Civil Code, 4
must be filed within four years, the RTC held that petitioners action
was barred by prescription for having been filed more than four
years after the r respondents moved for the dismissal of the
complaint on the grounds of prescription and laches.
Facts:
On May 10, 1989, Edesito and Consorcia Ragasa entered into a
contract with Oakland Development Resources Corporation for the
purchase in installments of a piece of property, with improvements,
located at No. 06, Garnet St., Prater Village II, Diliman, Q.C. covered
by TCT No. 27946 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City.
Sometime March of 1999, during one of the trips of plaintiff
Consorcia Ragasa to the Philippines from Italy, she was surprised to
learn from the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City that on April 14,
1995, the property in question was sold by defendant Ex-Officio
Sheriff of Quezon City to defendants Sps. Roa as the highest bidder
for the price and consideration of P511,000.00.
Edesito and Consorcia Ragasa filed a complaint1 against
private respondents Gerardo and Rodriga Roa and the ex-officio
sheriff of Quezon City.
To make out an action to quiet title under the foregoing
provision, the initiatory pleading has only to set forth allegations
showing that (1) the plaintiff has "title to real therein"7 and (2) the
defendant claims an interest therein adverse to the plaintiffs arising
from an "instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact
invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
The
suit
showing that (1) the plaintiff has "title to real property or any
interest
therein"7 and (2) the defendant claims an interest therein adverse
to the plaintiffs arising from an "instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective
but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
In an order3 dated February 3, 2000, the RTC granted the motion.
Characterizing the suit as an action "upon an injury to the rights of
the plaintiff" which, according to Article 1146 of the Civil Code, 4
must be filed within four years, the RTC held that petitioners action
was barred by prescription for having been filed more than four
years after the registration of the execution sale.
Issue: Whether the petitioners action was subject to prescription or
not
Held:
The trial courts order of dismissal was predicated on the theory that
the suit petitioners commenced was an "action upon an injury to
their rights" contemplated in Article 1146 of the Civil Code was
erroneous. Petitioners complaint reveals that the action was
essentially one
To make out an action to quiet title under the foregoing
provision, the initiatory pleading has only to set forth allegations
showing that (1) the plaintiff has "title to real property or any
interest therein"7 and (2) the defendant claims an interest therein
adverse to the plaintiffs arising from an "instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective
but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
Held:
trial courts order of dismissal was predicated on the theory that the
petitioners commenced was an "action upon an injury to their rights"