An action for annulment of title, like any other civil action, must be instituted

by the real party in interest

Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who stands to
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails
of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

This provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff

must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name
of the real party in interest. Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means
material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of
the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. One
having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the
plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is
dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action. 1

An action for annulment of certificates of title to property into the issue of

ownership of the land covered by a Torrens title and the relief generally prayed for by
the plaintiff is to be declared as the land’s true owner. 2 The real party in interest in
such action therefore is the person claiming title or ownership adverse to that of the
registered owner. The case of Tankiko v. Cezar 3 has illustrated for us the application
of this principle in the following manner:

It is evident that the complainant is the real party in interest since he proves
based on evidences presented that Carlito Palarca and Carlos Palarca is one and
the same person. There is also an adoption decree which was submitted before this
Court to prove that Carlos Palarca and his siblings were adopted by Julia L. Palarca
who is one of the heirs of Sesinando Palarca. Sesinando Palarca is one of the five
children of the deceased spouses Joaquina Ferrer and Domingo Palarc, the
registered owner of a parcel of land covered under Transfer Certificate of Title No.
043-2011007771.

Transfer Certificate of Title No. 043-2011007771 was transferred in the name of the
defendant who executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Succession, adjudicating to herself
Lot No. 4219-B. Assuming for the sake of argument that the defendant is legal heir,
the transfer of title of the subject property of this case to the
defendant was tainted with irregularities since she was not the sole
heir.

This Court would like to take as judicial notice the complaint

filed by the defendant before this Court in a Civil Case No.011-18
wherein in the statements of facts, the defendant stated that she has a
siblings from the late Sesinando Palarca and Juanita Baniqued,
namely, Carolina B. Palarca, Richard B. Palarca, Felicidad B. Palarca
and Elsa B. Palarca. In this admission of the defendant, it is very clear
that the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement executed is tainted with
irregularities. Hence, considered as null and void.

Judicial notice is

1
Spouses Oco v. Limbaring, G.R. No. 161298, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 348.
2
Heirs of Abadilla v. Galarosa, G.R. No. 149041, July 12, 2006, 494 SCRA 675
3
362 Phil. 184 (1999)
 respondents are not the real parties in interest. Because they admit that they are not
the owners of the land but mere applicants for sales patents thereon, it is daylight
clear that the land is public in character and that it should revert to the State. This
being the case, Section 101 of the Public Land Act categorically declares that only
the government may institute an action to recover ownership of a public land.

xxxx

Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest. It further defines a "real party in
interest" as one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. x x
x The interest of the party must be personal and not one based on a desire to
vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.

Clearly, a suit filed by a person who is not a party in i

An action for annulment of title questions the validity of the title because of lack of
due process of law. There is an allegation of nullity in the procedure and thus the
invalidity of the title that is issued. 4

After consideration of the issues, arguments and evidences

raised by the opposing sides, the Court finds the petition meritorious.

n Vda. de Figuracion v. Figuracion-Gerilla. 5 citing Lacbayan v. Samay, Jr.,   we 92

reaffirm this ruling, and stated that:

4
Sps. Roberto Aboitiz And Maria Cristina Cabarrus, Vs. Sps. Peter L. Po And Victoria L. Po And
G.R. No. 208497 Sps. Peter L. Po And Victoria L. Po, Vs.Sps. Roberto Aboitiz And Maria
Cristina Cabarrus, Jose Maria Moraza, And Ernesto Aboitiz And Isabel Aboitiz, G.R. No. 208450
June 5, 2017.
5
G.R. No. 151334, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 495
Mere issuance of a certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose
the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not
named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only be a trustee, or that other
parties may have acquired interest over the property subsequent to the issuance of
the certificate of title. Stated differently, placing a parcel of land under the mantle of
the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed.
The certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. 6

6
G.R. No. 165427, March 21, 2011, 645 SCRA 677, 690