See - G.R. No. 187633 (lawphil.net)
HEIRS OF DELFIN and MARIA TAPPA, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF
JOSE BACUD, HENRY CALABAZARON and VICENTE MALUPENG, Respondents. G.R. No.
187633, April 4, 2016.
“x x x.
The action for quieting of title
should not prosper.
The action filed by Spouses Tappa was one for quieting of
title and recovery of possession. In Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 59 an
action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on
equity, to wit:
x x x Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to
secure"... an adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in
property, adverse to that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the
complainant and those claiming under him may be forever afterward free from any
danger of hostile claim." In an action for quieting of title, the
competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant
and other claimants, "... not only to place things in their proper place,
to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the
other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see
every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards
without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to
abuse the property as he deems best. x x x. "60 (Emphasis in the
original.)
In our jurisdiction, the remedy is governed by Article 476 and
477 of the Civil Code, which state:
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.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to,
or interest in the real property which is the subject-matter of the action. He
need not be in possession of said property.
From the foregoing provisions, we reiterate the rule that for
an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur,
namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to
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.61
Spouses Tappa failed to meet these two requisites.
First, Spouses Tappa's claim of iegal title over Lot No. 3341
by virtue of the free patent and the certificate of title, OCT No. P-69103
issued in their name cannot stand. The certificate of title indjcates that it
was issued by virtue of Patent No. 021519-92-3194. We agree with the CA that at
the time of the application for free patent, Lot No. 3341 had already become
private land by virtue of the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession by respondents. Hence, Lot No. 3341 had been removed from the
coverage of the Public Land Act,62 which governs public patent applications.
The settled rule is that a free patent issued over a private
land is null and void, and produces no legal effects. whatsoever.1awp++i1
Private ownership of land-as when there is a prima facie proof of ownership
like a duly registered possessory information or a clear showing of open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, by present or previous
occupants-is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land,
because the Public Land Law applies only to lands of the public domain. The
Director of Lands has no authority to grant free patent to lands that have
ceased to be public in character and have passed to private ownership.63
In Magistrado v. Esplana, 64 we cancelled the titles issued
pursuant to a free patent after finding that the lots involved were privately
owned since time immemorial. A free patent that purports to convey land to
which the Government did not have any title at the time of its issuance does
not vest any title in the patentee as against the true owner. 65
In this case, the parties were able to show that Lot No. 3341
was occupied by, and has been in possession of the Tappa family, even before
the 1963 Affidavit was executed. After the execution of the 1963 Affidavit,
respondents occupied their respective portions of the property. Delfin
testified that before his father, Lorenzo, died in 1961, Lorenzo had been
occupying the lot since before the war, and that Delfin was born there in 1934.66
Records show that Lorenzo declared Lot No. 3341 for taxation
purposes as early as 1948, and paid the real property taxes (evidenced by real
property tax payment receipts in the name of Lorenzo from 1952 until his death
in 1961).67 Spouses Tappa were likewise shown to pay the real property taxes
from 1961 to 2000.68 Similarly, respondents also declared their respective
portions of Lot No. 3341 for taxation in their names in 1994, and paid real
property taxes on those portions from 1967 to 2004.69 Although tax declarations
or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership,
they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his
right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive
possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title
over the property. 70
Spouses Tappa also admitted in their complaint that sometime
in 1963, Bacud and Malupeng started occupying portions of Lot No. 3341 and
planted crops on the property, while Calabazaron did the same on another
portion of the lot in the 1970's.71 The complaint stated further that since
1963. the respondents "continuously occupied portion of the subject
land." 72
In view of the foregoing circumstances that show open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of Lot No. 3341,
the property had been segregated from the public domain. 73 At the time the
patent and the certificate of title were issued in 1992, Spouses Tappa and their
predecessors-in-interest were already in possession, at least to the half of
the lot, since 1934; and respondents were also in possession of the other half
since 1963. Therefore, the free patent issued covers a land already segregated
from the public domain.
In Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano E.
Santiago,74 we ruled, thus:
Considering the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land by respondents and their predecessors in
interests, they are deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a
government grant without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued.
The land was thus segregated from the public domain and the director of lands
had no authority to issue a patent. Hence, the free patent covering Lot 2344, a
private land, and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto, are void.75
Records also show that Spouses Tappa were aware of
respondents' possession of the disputed portions of Lot No. 3341. They even
admitted such possession (since 1963) by respondents in their complaint filed
in 1999. Despite this, Spouses Tappa were able to obtain a free patent of the
whole property even if they were not in possession of some of its portions.
Therefore, Free Patent No. 021519-92-3194 and OCT No. P-69103 are void not only
because it covers a private land, but also because they fraudulently included76
respondents' portion of the property. In Avila v. Tapucar, 77 we held that
"[i]f a person obtains a title under the Torrens system, which includes by
mistake or oversight land which can no longer be registered under the system,
he does not, by virtue of the said certificate alone, become the owner of the
lands illegally included."78
In an action to quiet title, legal title denotes registered
ownership, while equitable title means beneficial ownership. 79 As discussed,
the free patent and the certificate of title issued to Spouses Tappa could not
be the source of their legal title.
The second requisite for an action to quiet title is likewise
wanting. We find that although an instrument (the 1963 Affidavit) exists, and
which allegedly casts cloud on Spouses Tappa's title, it was not shown to be in
fact invalid or ineffective against Spouses Tappa's rights to the property.
A cloud on a title exists when (1) there is an instrument
(deed, or contract) or record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which
is apparently valid or effective; (3) but is, in truth and in fact, invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable or extinguished (or terminated) or
barred by extinctive prescription; and (4) and may be prejudicial to the
title.80
The 1963 Affidavit it is no doubt an instrument, which appears
to be valid. It is dated and appears to be executed and signed by Delfin, his
mother, and sisters. It is also notarized by a public notary. It states that
Genaro originally owns the land described, and that one-half (l/2) of which is
actually owned by Irene as a co-heir. This is contrary to the claim of
Spouses Tappa that the property was solely Lorenzo's.
Respondents' argue that this affidavit evidences the title of their
predecessor-in-interest over Lot No. 3341 and effectively, theirs.81
The 1963 Affidavit however, was not proven to be, in fact,
invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, or extinguished (or
terminated) or barred by extinctive prescription. The CA correctly found that
Spouses Tappa's claim of force and intimidation in the execution of the 1963
Affidavit was "unsubstantiated."82 The CA pointed out that,
"[a]side from the testimony of Delfin Tappa, no other evidence was
presented to prove the claim of force and intimidation, hence, it is at most,
self-serving."53 Also, the 1963 Affidavit was duly notarized and, as such,
is considered a public document, and enjoys the presumption of validity as to
its authenticity and due execution.
Thus, we affirm the ruling of the CA that the requisites for
an action to quiet title are wanting in this case.84
X x x.”
