1.) Baricuarto Jr.

Vs CA
FACTS:
-Baricuarto bought two lots on an installment basis from private respondent Galeos.
The two lots are part of victoria village. Baricuarto was unable to pay the full
amount.
- At the time the original action for quieting of title was filed in the trial court,
petitioner had an unpaid balance of P1,000.00 as to Lot No. 9 and P3,020.00 as to
Lot No. 10. The titles to the said lots remained in the name of respondent Galeos.

-After the sale, petitioner introduced certain improvements on the said lots
and started to reside therein in 1970.1[9] Since then petitioner has been in
actual and physical possession of the two (2) lots
- However, on December 7, 1968, about two (2) months from the date of the
previous sale to petitioner, respondent Galeos sold the entire subdivision,
including the two (2) lots, to his co-respondent Eugenio Amores.2[11]
Subsequently, petitioner was informed by respondent Galeos about the sale
to respondent Amores and was advised to pay the balance of the purchase
price of the two (2) lots directly to respondent Amores.
- On December 27, 1974, respondent Amores sold the two (2) lots to the
spouses Mariano and Felisa Nemenio, two of the respondents herein.3[17] Prior
to the sale, however, petitioner was informed through a letter by respondent
Amores about the impending sale of the two (2) lots but the former failed to
respond.4[18] The respondent spouses Nemenio caused the transfer of the
titles5[19] to the said lots and the issuance of tax declarations in their names.
Thereafter, the respondent spouses Nemenio demanded from petitioner to
vacate the said lots but the latter refused to do so.
- TC rendered judgment in favor of respondent spouses
ISSUE:
W/N Spouses Nemenio are purchasers in good faith
HELD:
respondent Amores did not act in good faith when he registered his title to the disputed lots on February
13, 1969. Assuming that respondent Amores was in good faith when he bought the disputed lots on

1
2
3
4
5

December 7, 1968, however, when he registered his title on February 13, 1969, the preponderance of
evidence supports the finding that he already had knowledge of the previous sale of the disputed lots to
petitioner. Such knowledge tainted his registration with bad faith. To merit protection under article 1544,
the second buyer must act in good faith from the time of the sale until the registration of the same.

2.) INC vs Ponferrada

FACTS:
- Alicia, Alfredo, Roberto, Enrique and Susan, all surnamed Santos, and Sonia
Santos-Wallin, represented by Enrique G. Santos, filed a complaint 3 for Quieting of
Title and/or Accion Reinvindicatoria before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City against the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), defendant therein.
- Plaintiffs alleged therein that, during his lifetime, Enrique Santos was the owner of
a 936-square-meter parcel of land located in Tandang Sora, Quezon City covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 57272 issued by the Register of Deeds on July
27, 1961 which cancelled TCT No. 57193-289. He had been in possession of the
owners duplicate of said title and had been in continuous, open, adverse and
peaceful possession of the property.
- The trial court issued an Order11 denying defendants motion to dismiss. It declared
that since Enrique Santos was one of the heirs, his signature in the verification and
certification constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules.
- Petitioner is now before this Court on petition for review on certiorari, raising the
following issues:
ISSUES:
1.) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING SIGNED BY RESPONDENT ENRIQUE G.
SANTOS ALONE IS A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 5, RULE 7 OF THE
1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND IN APPLYING THE CASE OF GUDOY V.
GUADALQUIVER, 429 SCRA 723, WITHOUT REGARD TO MORE RECENT
JURISPRUDENCE.
2.) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE
AUTHORITY OF RESPONDENT ENRIQUE G. SANTOS TO REPRESENT HIS CO-HEIRS IN
THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS A MATTER OF
EVIDENCE.
3.) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
ACTION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE AND/OR ACCION REINVINDICATORIA (CIVIL CASE
NO. Q-01-45415) HAS NOT YET PRESCRIBED
HELD:
2.) we find no necessity to show such authority. Respondents herein are co-owners
of the subject property. As such co-owners, each of the heirs may properly bring an
action for ejectment, forcible entry and detainer, or any kind of action for the
recovery of possession of the subject properties. Thus, a co-owner may bring such
an action, even without joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the
suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.
3.) Since respondents were in actual or physical possession of the property when

they filed their complaint against petitioner on October 24, 2001, the prescriptive
period for the reinvindicatory action had not even commenced to run, even if
petitioner was able to secure TCT No. 321744 over the property in 1984

3.) Anastacia Vda de Aviia vs CA and Camilo Aviles

FACTS:
- Eduardo Aviles was in actual possession of the afore-described property. In fact, the latter
mortgaged the same with the Rural Bank and Philippine National Bank branch in Lingayen.
When the property was inspected by a bank representative, Eduardo Aviles, in the presence of the
boundary owners, namely, defendant Camilo Aviles, Anastacio Aviles and Juana and Apolonio
Joaquin(,) pointed to the inspector the existing earthen dikes as the boundary limits of the
property and nobody objected. When the real estate mortgage was foreclosed, the property was
sold at public auction but this was redeemed by plaintiffs mother and the land was subsequently
transferred and declared in her name.
-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 (thereon) and moving the earthen dikes, thereby molesting and disturbing the peaceful
possession of the plaintiffs over said portion.
- Dissatisfied with the trial courts decision, petitioners appealed to the respondent appellate
Court. In its now-assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part the decision of the trial
court, reasoning that a special civil action for quieting of title is not the proper remedy for
settling a boundary dispute, and that petitioners should have instituted an ejectment suit instead.
The dispositive portion of the impugned Decision reads as follows:
ISSUES:
a. Whether or not the Hon. Court of Appeals is correct when it opined that the xxx complaint for
quieting of title instituted by the petitioners against private respondent before the court a quo is
not the proper remedy but rather, it should be a case for ejectment (sic).
b. Whether or not the Hon. Court of Appeals is correct in rendering a decision, now subject of
the instant petition, without fully determining the respective rights of the herein parties.
HELD:
a. 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.
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.

the trial court (and likewise the respondent Court) cannot, in an action for quieting of title, order
the determination of the boundaries of the claimed property, as that would be tantamount to
awarding to one or some of the parties the disputed property in an action where the sole issue is
limited to whether the instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding involved constitutes
a cloud upon the petitioners interest or title in and to said property. Such determination of
boundaries is appropriate in adversarial proceedings where possession or ownership may
properly be considered and where evidence aliunde, other than the instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding itself, may be introduced. An action for forcible entry, whenever
warranted by the period prescribed in Rule 70, or for recovery of possession de facto, also within
the prescribed period, may be availed of by the petitioners, in which proceeding the boundary
dispute may be fully threshed out.