CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS.

PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING

CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 160728. 11 March 2015. First Division (Leonardo-De Castro, J.)

TOPIC: Requisites in order that an action of quieting of title prosper: (1) the plaintiff or complainant
has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed,
claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in
fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

FACTS: The case started with a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Damages and Injunction filed by
respondent Phil-Ville against petitioner and the Register of Deeds of Metro Manila District III on
August 28, 1991. Respondent Phil-Ville claims that it is the registered owner and actual possessor of
sixteen (16) parcels of land, and it had been in actual, open, notorious, public, physical and continuous
possession thereof before 1980 up to the present. It fenced said parcels of land in 1980 and 1991.

Respondent Phil-Ville claimed that an actual plotting of the relative position of Lot 26 thereof, as
particularly described in petitioners aforementioned TCT in relation to the positions of all the lots
covered by respondent Phil-Villes TCT, proved positively that said TCT of petitioner overlaps
respondent Phil-Villes aforesaid parcels of land.

Contention of respondent Phil-Ville: Petitioners TCT No. T-177013, although apparently valid or
effective, is in truth and in fact, invalid and ineffective, and unless declared as such by the court, will
inevitably prejudice respondent Phil-Villes title over its 16 parcels of land, as said title of petitioner
is a potential cause of litigations between respondent Phil-Ville and petitioner, as in the present suit,
as well as suit/s involving respondent Phil-Ville and transferee/s of petitioner of the entire and/or a
portion of Lot 26 in question.

Ruling of the RTC: Respondent Phil-Ville is the true, absolute and legitimate owner of the sixteen
(16) parcels of land subject matter of the case.

ISSUE: WON petitioners TCT No. T-177013 imposes a cloud on respondent Phil-Villes titles to the
16 parcels of land subject matter of this case, as provided in Art. 476 of the Civil Code.

RULING: YES. The RTC and the Court of Appeals both arrived at the conclusion that respondent Phil-
Ville had a valid title to the 16 parcels of land subject of the complaint, and that petitioners title is
invalid despite its prima facie appearance of validity.

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty
affecting title to real property. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest in
real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that 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. In such action, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights
of the complainant and the other claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and make
the claimant, who has no rights to said immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but
also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the
property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce any desired improvements, as well as
use, and even abuse the property.

In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, two requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff
or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and
(2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be
shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal
efficacy. Thus, the cloud on title consists of: (1) any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding; (2) which is apparently valid or effective; (3) but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable; and (4) may be prejudicial to the title sought to be quieted.
IMELDA, LEONARDO, FIDELINO, AZUCENA, JOSEFINA, ANITA AND SISA, ALL SURNAMED
SYJUCO VS. FELISA D. BONIFACIO AND VSD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 148748. 14 January 2015. First Division (Leonardo-De Castro, J.)

TOPIC: In land ownership disputes, the filing of an action to quiet title is imprescriptible if the
disputed real property is in the possession of the plaintiff. One who is in actual possession of a piece
of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked
before taking steps to vindicate his right.

FACTS: Petitioner are the registered owner of the land. They have been in open, continuous, and
uninterrupted possession of the subject land, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest since 1926, and have been paying the real property taxes thereof since 1949. Among the
annotations thereon is an encumbrance, a lease agreement, dated September 24, 1963, in favor of
Manufacturers Bank and Trust Company.

In 1994, petitioners found out that the purported owner of the subject land, respondent Felisa D.
Bonifacio, was the sub-lessee of Kalayaan Development Corporation, which, in turn, was the sub-
lessee of Manufacturers Bank, which was the direct lessee of petitioners. Petitioners also learned
that respondent Bonifacio was able to register the subject land in her name under TCT No. 265778,
which was issued on March 29, 1993 by the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City.

To protect their rights and interest over the subject land, petitioners lodged a Petition praying for the
declaration of nullity and cancellation of TCT No. 265778 in view of petitioners subsisting TCT No.
T-108530 over the very same property. The trial court deemed that the case is a special civil action
for quieting of title and not an ordinary civil action for recovery of ownership of land. Subsequently,
petitioners discovered that respondent Bonifacio sold the subject land in favor of respondent VSD
Realty & Development Corporation (VSD Realty), as a result, petitioners VSD as a respondent.

Ruling of the RTC: Comparing the technical descriptions in the TCTs, the court noted the bare
differences in the land areas and lot numbers contained therein, and concluded that said technical
descriptions were not one and the same.

On appeal, respondents argued that petitioners actions for queting of title was a collateral attack on
the validity of respondents titles. Pursuant thereto, CA affirmed in toto the Decision rendered by the
trial court.

ISSUE: WON the filing of an action to quiet title over the subject land by the petitioners is proper.

RULING: YES. It is an established doctrine in land ownership disputes that the filing of an action to
quiet title is imprescriptible if the disputed real property is in the possession of the plaintiff. One
who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason
for the rule being that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a
court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its
effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.
In this case, petitioners have duly established during the trial that they and/or their predecessors-
in-interest have been in uninterrupted possession of the subject land since 1926 and that it was only
in 1994 when they found out that respondent Bonifacio was able to register the said property in her
name in another title. It was also only in 1995 when petitioners learned that respondent Bonifacio
was able to sell and transfer her title over the subject land in favor of respondent VSD Realty.

Moreover, the rule on the incontrovertibility or indefeasibility of title has no application in this case
given the fact that the contending parties claim ownership over the subject land based on their
respective certificates of title thereon which originated from different sources. Certainly, there
cannot be two or even several certificates of title on the same parcel of real property because a land
registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of
another in an earlier land registration case and a second decree for the same land would be null and
void, since the principle behind original registration is to register a parcel of land only once.

The indefeasibility of a title under the Torrens system could be claimed only if a previous valid title
to the same parcel of land does not exist. Where the issuance of the title was attended by fraud, the
same cannot vest in the titled owner any valid legal title to the land covered by it; and the person in
whose name the title was issued cannot transmit the same, for he has no true title thereto. This ruling
is a mere affirmation of the recognized principle that a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if
it is shown that the same land had already been registered and that an earlier certificate for the same
land is in existence.
JOSE NORBERTO ANG VS. THE ESTATE OF SY SO
G.R. No. 182252. 03 August 2016. First Division (Sereno, C.J.)

TOPIC: Parcels of land acquired in violation of the Constitution, prohibiting aliens from owning land
in the Philippines cannot be legally reconveyed to one who had no right to own them in the first place.
As such, the Solicitor General, may initiate an action for reversion or escheat of the land to the State.

FACTS: Sometime in the late 1930s, respondent Sy So, a Chinese citizen, was married to a certain Jose
Ang. The couple was childless. In 1941, a woman approached respondent Sy So and offered an infant
for adoption, the latter immediately accepted the offer, however, no formal adoption papers were
processed. The said child was christened as Jose Norberto Ang.
Jose Ang died in 1943 during the Pacific War. Later, respondent Sy So acquired several properties,
and registered it in the name of petitioner Jose Norberto, who was then three years old, in keeping
with the Chinese tradition of registering properties in the name of the eldest male son or ward.
Respondent gave Jose Norberto a photocopy of the TCTs so that he could show it to prospective
tenants. Unbeknownst to the former, Jose Norberto filed Petitions for the Issuance of Second Owner's
Duplicate Certificate of Title. In 1971, he sold the one of the real property.
Pursuant thereto, Jose Norberto demand respondent to vacate the sold real property and to pay a
certain amount of money representing as rental payments for occupying the same; however,
respondent refused to comply with either of the demands. Jose Norberto then filed an ejectment suit
against her, twice, but both actions were dismissed by the trial court. Respondent, on the other hand,
filed with the RTC a case for "Transfer of Trusteeship from the Defendant Jose Norberto Ang to the
New Trustee, citing Jose Norberto's gross ingratitude, disrespectfulness, dishonesty and breach of
trust. However, the same was dismissed.
On appeal, Jose Norberto argued that the instant case should have been dismissed outright because
respondent, being a Chinese citizen, could not own real property in the Philippines under the 1987
Constitution which prohibits aliens from owning private lands save in cases of hereditary succession.
ISSUE: WON the properties in question may be subject to reconveyance in favor of Jose Norberto.
RULING: NO. The purchase of the subject parcels of land was made sometime in 1944, during the
effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. Sections 1 and 5 of Article XIII states that aliens may not acquire
residential lands. This is in line with the constitutional intent to preserve and conserve the national
patrimony.
The Court found that respondent Sy So acquired the subject parcels of land in violation of the said
constitutional provisions. Axiomatically, the properties in question cannot be legally reconveyed to
one who had no right to own them in the first place. Pursuant thereto, the Solicitor General, may
initiate an action for reversion or escheat of the land to the State. In sales of real estate to aliens
incapable of holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution, both the vendor and
the vendee are deemed to have committed the constitutional violation; hence, being in pari delicto,
the courts will not afford protection to either party. The proper party who could assail the sale is the
Solicitor General.