CALACALA vs.

REPUBLIC
FACTS:
Deceased Spouses Calacala offered the subject land as a property bond to
secure provisional release of an accused in a criminal case. When the accused
failed to appear, the CFI issued a writ of execution and directing the sheriff to
effect levy on the parcel of land and to sell the same at a public auction to the
satisfy the amount of bond. As a result, a Notice of Levy was annotated on the
title.
On October 5, 1982, respondent Republic acquired a certificate of sale as
the winning bidder during the public auction of the subject land, which was also
annotated on the title, thereby giving the Spouses Calacala to redeem their
property for a period of 1 (one) year.
Hence, petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased Spouses Calacala filed
complaint for Quieting of Title and Cancellation of Encumbrance on TCT No. T-
21204 against respondents Republic and Sheriff.
The respondents argue that petitioners have no cause of action and their
right to redeem already prescribed. Petitioners argue that Republic has not
perfect its title over the land when it failed to secure the Certificate of Final Sale
and Writ of Possession and failed to execute an Affidavit of Consolidation of
Ownership. Consequently, their right over the land already prescribed, deemed
abandoned and waived. The trial court dismissed the petitioners’ complaint.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the trial court’s dismissal of petitioner’s complaint for Quieting
of Title is proper.
RULING:
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two requisites must concur:
(1) The plaintiff must have legal or an 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.
However, the requisites are absent in this case because petitioners base their
claim of legal title not on the strength of any independent writing but solely on
Republic’s failure to secure Certificate of Final Sale and to execute an Affidavit of
Consolation of Ownership over the disputed land within 10 years from the
registration of Certificate of Sale.
The Court ruled that petitioners lost whatever right they had over the land
when they failed to redeem it during the one-year period of redemption.
Moreover, in accordance with Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (applies
retroactively) which provides that the expiration of the one-year redemption
period forecloses the obligor’s right to redeem and that the sale thereby
becomes absolute, the issuance thereafter of a final deed of sale is at best a
mere formality and mere confirmation of title that is already vested in
purchaser.

Hence, the first requisite is wanting since petitioners have neither legal title nor
equitable claim over the property. Also, they in fact admitted in their pleadings
the validity of Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale duly registered on October 5, 1982,
hence, the second requisite of an action to quiet title is likewise absent.
Note: Wanting ‘yung second requisite kasi di ba dapat patunay nila na as plaintiffs
na invalid ‘yung cloud over their title, however, these plaintiffs in fact ADMITTED
THE VALIDITY OF WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CLOUD OVER THEIR TITLE.