Portic vs Cristobal

G.R. No. 156171. April 22, 2005

Spouses Ricardo and Ferma Portic, petitioners, vs Anastacia Cristobal, respondemt.
FACTS:
1. Souses Clodualdo Alcantara and Candelaria Edrosalam were the original registered owners of
a parcle of land with three-door apartment, located in Valenzuela City.
2. On October 2, 1986, Alcantara and Edrosalam sold the subject property in favor of the Spuses
Portic with the condition that the latter shall assume the mortgage executed over the subject
property by spouses Alcantara and Edrosalam in favor of the Social Security System (SSS).
3. Spouses Portic defaulted in the payment of the monthly amortization of the mortgage. SSS
foreclosed the mortgage and sold the property ar public action with SSS as the highest bidder.
4. On May 22, 1984, before the expiration of the redemption period, Spouses Portic sold the subject
property in favor of Cristobal in consideration of P200,025.90. They agreed that Cristobal shall
pay the sum of P45,025.89 as down payment and the balance of P155,000.00 shall be paid on or
before May 22, 1985. The parties further agreed that un case Cristobal should fail to comply with
the conditions, the sale shall be considered void and Spuses Portic shall reimburse her if whatever
amount already paid.
5. On the same date, both parties executed a “Deed if Sale with Assumption of Mortgage,” whereby
Spouses Portic sold the subject property in favor of Cristobal for P80,000, and P45,000 thereof
shall be paid to the SSS.
6. On July 30, 1984, Alcantara and Edrosalam, original owners of the subject property, sold the
property in favor of Cristobal for P50,000.00.
7. On the same date, Cristobal executed a “Deed of Mortgage” whereby Cristobal constituted a
mortgage over the subject property to secure a P150,000 indebtedness in favor of Spouses Portic.
8. Cristobal paid the indebtedness due over the property to SSS.
9. On August 06, 1984, the TCT of said property in the names of Spouses Alcantara and Candelaria
was cancelled in lieu thereof another TCT was issued in the name of Cristobal.
10. On May 20, 1996, Spouses Portic demanded from Cristobal the alleged unpaid balance of
P55,000 which Cristobal refused to pay.
11. On June 9, 1996, Spouses Portic filed this instant civil case against Cristobal to remove the
cloud created by the issuance of a new TCT in the name of Cristobal. Spouses Portic demanded
that Cristobal should be required to convey back the title of the property to them in accordance
with their agreement.
12. Cristobal claimed that her title over the property is already indefeasible as the true agreement
of the parties is embodied in the Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage and that she
has fully paid the purchase price.
13. The RTC of Velenzuela rendered a decision in favor of the Spuses Portic ordering Cristobal to
reconvey in favor of the Portics the parcel of land and three-door apartment after reimbursement
of the Portics of the amount actually paid by Cristobal amounting to P145,025.89. Court also
ordered for the quieting of title or removal of cloud over the Portics’ property.
14. The CA opined that the first MOA embodied the real agreement between the parties and that
the subsequent Deed were executed merely to secure their respective rights over the property. The
MOA stated that Cristobal had not fully paid the purchase price. Although this statement might
have given rise to a cause of action to annul the Deed of Sale, prescription already set in because
the case had been filed beyond the ten-year reglementary period, as observed by the CA. In
conformity with the principle of unjust enrichment, the CA ordered Cristobal to pay the Portics
the remaining balance of the purchase price.
15. In their motion for partial reconsideration, petitioners contended that their action was not one
for the enforcement of a written contract but one got the quieting of title- an action that was
imprescriptible as long as they remained in possession of the premises. CA held, however, that the
agreement between the parties was valid, and that respondent’s title to the property was amply
supported by the evidence. Therefore, their action for the quieting of title would not prosper,
because they failed to show the invalidity of the cloud on their title. Hence, this Petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the Spouses Portics’ cause of action is for quieting of title and whether Portics’ cause
of action has prescribed.
HELD:
1. The petition has merit.
2. Two questions need to be answered to resolve the present case; namely, (1) whether Cristobal’s
title to the property is valid; and (2) whether the Portics are in possession of the premises, a fact
that would render the action for quieting of title imprescriptible.
3. Suits to quiet title are characterized as proceedings quasi in rem. Technically, they are neither
in rem nor in personam. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant. However,
unlike suits in rem, a quasi in rem judgment is conclusive only between the parties.
4. The claim of Cristobal cannot be sustained as the transfer of ownership of the premises in her
favor is subject ot the suspensive condition of the MOA which states that while the balance of
P155,000 has not yet been fully paid, the First Party Owners shall retain the ownership of the
property. Thus, the agreement between he parties is a Contract to Sell. Thus, ownership is retained
with the Portics. Mere issuance of Certificate of Title does not vest ownership to Cristobal. Under
Article 1544 of the Civil Code, mere registration is not enough to acquire a new title. Good faith
must concur. Clearly, respondent has not yet fully paid the purchase price. Hence, as long as it
remains unpaid, she cannot feign good faith.
5. The issue of whether the Portics have been in actual, continuous possession of the premises is
necessarily a question of fact. Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals, when supported by substantial evidence, are final and conclusive and may not be
reviewed on appeal. Wherefore, the petition is Granted.