CHAPTER 3 ➢ Quieting of title is a common-law remedy for the removal of
any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title
QUIETING OF TITLE
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.
STATEMENT OF THE CODE COMMISSION EXPLAINING THE
REASON FOR THE CHAPTER ON QUIETING OF TITLE
a. Section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that
actions to remove a cloud from the title to real estate shall
be brought in the province where the land is situated.
b. But no provision of the substantive law states under what
conditions the action may be brought.
c. This is a well-established remedy in American Law. The
reason is that equity comes to the aid of him who would
suffer if the instrument (as described in Art. 476) were
enforced. He is in good conscience entitled to a removal of
the cloud or doubt upon his title. Upon the other hand, the
respondent has no legal or moral ground to hold the
instrument against the petitioner’s title.’ (Report of the Code
Commission, p. 55).
to real property. (Vda. de Aviles v. CA, 76 SCAD 396 [1966])
➢ 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.’’
(Arturo Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the
Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 2, p. 137)
➢ 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.’’
(Edgardo Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated,
13th ed. [1994], p. 270)
KINDS OF ACTION REFERRED TO
a. Remedial — (action to remove the cloud or to quiet title).
(Art. 476, par. 1).
b. Preventive — (action to prevent a future cloud or doubt —
actio quia timet)
EXISTENCE OF THE ‘CLOUD’
The “cloud’’ (or doubt) on title exists because:
a. of an instrument (deed, or contract) or record or claim or
encumbrance or proceeding.
 b. which is APPARENTLY valid or effective.
c. BUT is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable, or extinguished (or terminated) or barred by
extinctive prescription. (Arts. 476-478). (d) AND may be
prejudicial to the title. (Art. 476).
Example: An agent, whose authority was not in writing, sold land
belonging to his principal to another person, in representation of
said principal. The deed of sale was a public instrument. Under Art.
1874, a sale by an agent of land is not valid if the authority is not in
writing. If the buyer insists on claiming the property as his own,
may the principal bring an action to quiet title?
- ANS.: Yes. On the face of the deed of sale, nothing appears to
be wrong. It is therefore apparently valid, although in reality,
it is null and void because of Art. 1874.
[NOTE: Had the deed of sale provided that the authority given the
agent was not in writing, it is clear on the FACE of the contract that
it is invalid (when the law is considered). Hence, there being no
“cloud,” it is not proper to bring the action.].
EXAMPLE:
O’s land was sold by F (a forger) to B (a buyer in good faith). O’s
name had been forged by F on the deed of sale. The sale, on its face,
is apparently valid, with O’s name indicated as the seller. In truth,
however, the sale is defective because of the forgery. O’s remedy is
an action to quiet title.
[NOTE: Please observe that when the instrument is not valid on its
face, the remedy does not apply. In one case, it was held that the test
is this: if a person were sued for ejectment on the strength of the
contract, does he have to produce evidence in order to defeat the
action? If no evidence other than the contract is needed, it is
because the contract is invalid on its face. If evidence is still
required, it is because the contract is apparently valid. (See Pixley
v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127). Stated otherwise, the test is: would the
owner of the property in an action at law brought by the adverse
party, and founded upon the instrument or claim, be required to
offer evidence to defeat a recovery? If proof would be essential, the
cloud exists; if proof is not needed, no cloud is cast. (See Thompson
v. Pac, 219 Fed. 624).].
➢ The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to
land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once
a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on
the mirador su casa, to avoid the possibility of losing his
land. An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title is not
allowed.
EXCEPTION:
- The only exception to this rule is where a person obtains a
certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he has
full knowledge of the rights of the true owner. He is then
considered as guilty of fraud and he may be compelled to
transfer the land to the defrauded owner so long as the
property has not passed to the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value
RIGHTS OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE CLOUDS
ELIMINATED
When one is disturbed in any form in his rights of property over an
immovable by the unfounded claim of others, he has the right to ask
from the competent courts
 a. that their respective rights be determined,
b. 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,
c. but also for the benefit of both,
d. so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt
over the property dissipated,
e. and he could afterwards without fear introduce the
improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the
property as he deems best. (Bautista v. Exconde, 40 O.G. [8th
S., No. 12, p. 231]). (5)
REASONS FOR ALLOWING THE ACTION
a. the prevention of litigation (eventual litigation);
b. the protection of the true title and possession;
c. the promotion of right and justice. (Lebman v. Shook, 69 Ala.
486)
NATURE OF THE ACTION (Action in personam)
- The result is not binding upon the whole world, therefore,
not in rem. It is really “in personam’’ because it is
enforceable only against the defeated party, or privies. (See
Sabina Santiago, et al. v. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc., L-14223,
Nov. 23, 1960, where the Court said that a suit to quiet title
brought against one co-owner, is NOT res judicata with
respect to the other co-owners who were not made parties
thereto).
- In fact, an action for conveyance, which is really in
personam, has, in at least one case, been considered by our
Supreme Court, as an action to quiet title. (Sapto, et al. v.
Fabiana, 103 Phil. 683). Technically, it is quasi in rem, which
is an action in personam concerning real property
QUERY
Are personal (movable) properties referred to in the action to quiet
title?
- ANS.: As the law is worded, NO, because the law says “real
property or any interest therein.” But by analogy, the same
principles should apply to personal property, particularly
vessels, which although movable, partake of the nature of
real property
SOME DECIDED DOCTRINES WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT
THERE EXISTED A CLOUD OVER THE TITLE
a. An agent, with the written authority of his principal to sell
the latter’s property, sold the same AFTER the death of the
principal but antedated the contract of sale. (Saltmarsh v.
Smith, 32 Ala. 404).
b. If the contract is forged. (Briggs v. Industrial Bank, 197 N.C.
120).
c. A contract by an incapacitated person. (Alvey v. Reed, 115
Ind. 148).
d. A mortgage valid on its face and will cause prejudice
although in reality invalid. (Vasket v. Moss, 115 N.C. 448)
REQUISITE NEEDED TO BRING AN ACTION TO PREVENT A
CLOUD (ACTION OR BILL QUIA TIMET).
- To authorize an action to prevent a cloud being cast on title,
it must be made clear that there is a fixed determination on
the part of the defendant to create a cloud (Clark v.
 Davenport, 95 N.Y. 477), and it is not sufficient that the
danger is merely speculative. (Sanders v. Yonkers, 63 N.Y.
489).
Example: If the sheriff threatens to attach property which is exempted
from attachment, an action to prevent a cloud on title will prosper.
(Webb v. Hayner, 49 Fed. 605).
DOES THE ACTION TO QUIET TITLE PRESCRIBE?
- It depends:
a. If the plaintiff is in possession of the property, the action
DOES NOT PRESCRIBE. (See Foja v. Court of Appeals, 75
SCRA 441, reiterated in Heirs of Uberas v. CFI of Negros
Occidental, L-48268, Oct. 30, 1978, 86 SCRA 145).
REASON:
NOTE: As a general rule, it is settled that an action to quiet title does
- While the owner continues to be liable to an action,
not prescribe. (Berico v. CA, 44 SCAD 84 [1993]).
proceeding, or suit upon the adverse claim, HE HAS A
CONTINUING RIGHT TO BE GIVEN AID BY THE COURT TO
ASCERTAIN AND DETERMINE THE NATURE OF SUCH
CLAIM AND ITS EFFECT ON HIS TITLE, OR TO ASSERT
ANY SUPERIOR EQUITY IN HIS FAVOR. He may wait until
his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before
taking steps to vindicate his right. (44 Am. Jur. 47; Cooper v.
Rhea, 39 L.R.A. 930; Sapto, et al. v. Fabiana, 103 Phil. 683).
- Thus, a buyer of land in 1931, who possesses it from that
date may still compel the seller’s successors-in-interest to
execute the proper deed of conveyance in 1954, so that the
deed may be registered. (Sapto, et al. v. Fabiana, 103 Phil.
683).
b. If the plaintiff is NOT in possession of the property, the
action MAY PRESCRIBE. (Sapto, et al. v. Fabiana, 103 Phil.
683). Moreover, even if the action is brought within the
period of limitations, it may be barred by LACHES, where
there is no excuse offered for the failure to assert the
title sooner. (Ongsiako, et al. v. Ongsiako, et al., L7510, Mar.
30, 1957; 44 Am. Jur. 47, 50). If somebody else has
possession, the period of prescription for the recovery of the
land is either 10 or 30 years, depending on ordinary or
extraordinary prescription. (See Ford v. Clendenmin, 215
N.Y. 10).
- And even if brought within the prescriptive period, the
action may no longer prosper if there has been an
unreasonable or unjustified delay in filing the suit —
estoppel by laches. (See 44 Am. Jur. 51).
➢ Just because probate proceedings are instituted, is it proper
to archive an action to quiet title (between parties each of
whom claims to have purchased the same properties from
an heir) to certain properties involved in said probate
proceedings?
- HELD: No, it would not be proper to do the archiving simply
because probate proceedings are begun in court. After all,
probate proceedings do not delve into the ownership of the
properties involved. Indeed, probate courts have no
jurisdiction to determine with finality, conflicts of
ownership. Such conflicts must be litigated in a separate
action, except where a party merely prays for the inclusion
or exclusion from the inventory of any particular property,
in which case the probate court may pass upon provisionally
 the question of inclusion or exclusion, but without prejudice
to its final determination in an appropriate action.
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.
NECESSITY FOR TITLE OF THE PLAINTIFF
- The plaintiff must either have the legal (registered)
ownership or the equitable (beneficial) ownership.
Otherwise, the action will not prosper.
[NOTE: In Nieto v. Quines, et al., L-14643, Jan. 28, 1961, the
Supreme Court had occasion to rule that one who has complied
with all the terms and conditions which would entitle him to a
homestead patent, even without a right on the land is to be
regarded as the equitable owner thereof. (Balboa v. Farrales, 51
Phil. 498).]
NON-NECESSITY OF POSSESSION
- the plaintiff may be in possession or not in possession. the
differences in effects are tabulated below:
If plaintiff is in possession If plaintiff is out of possession
a) period does not prescribe a) period prescribes
b) only right is to remove or b) aside from being given the
prevent cloud. (See 44 Am. Jur. right to remove or prevent
46-47) cloud, he may also bring the
ordinary actions of ejectment,
publiciana or reivindicatoria
within the proper prescriptive
periods. (See 44 Am. Jur., 46-
47).
ILLUSTRATION AS TO WHO MAY BE THE PLAINTIFF
With my brother’s authority, and as a result of a trust agreement, I
registered the land of my brother in my name. Neither of us is in
actual possession. Who may bring an action to quiet title against, for
example, a stranger?
- ANS.: Either my brother or me, since my brother has the
equitable title, while I have the legal title. Neither of us needs
possession before the action is brought
Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a
cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other
obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or has
been barred by extinctive prescription.
TWO INSTANCES WHERE THE ACTION MAY BE USED TWO
CASES ARE MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE:
a. when the contract, etc., has ended;
Example: X was given by Y the right of ownership over a piece of
land for 5 years. At the end of that time, if X insists on his continued
ownership, Y may bring the action to quiet title. (See 78 ALR 127).
In one case, a piece of land was given to a husband and his wife on
condition that if the wife later on deserts unjustifiably the husband,
the latter would be the sole owner thereof. The wife, after a few
months, deserted unjustifiably the husband, but insisted on her co-
ownership. The husband may now bring the action because the
resolutory condition has been fulfilled. (Brooks v. Kearns, 86 Ill.
547).
b. when the action is barred by extinctive prescription.
Example:
a. A possessed B’s land in bad faith adversely, publicly, and
continuously for 30 years. A is now, therefore, the owner. If
B still insists on his ownership, A may bring the action to
quiet title. In this case, B can really not recover the land
anymore from A.
b. A owns a piece of land mortgaged to Y. If later the mortgage
is extinguished because of the statute of limitations, A may
bring the action to quiet title or remove the cloud for it is
evident that the mortgage no longer exists. (See Bank v.
Steward, 8 Kan. A. 22)
Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits
he may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for
expenses that may have redounded to the plaintiff's benefit.
DUTY OF PLAINTIFF TO MAKE CERTAIN REIMBURSEMENT
Example:
A bought land thru an agent whose authority was not in writing. A
then built a fence around the land. In an action to quiet title, the
principal will win (since under Art. 1874, the sale is really void) but
he must reimburse A for the expenses for the fence, since this has
redounded to his (the principal’s) benefit.
[NOTE: Moreover, in the above case for instance, any expenses
made by A for the execution or registration of the contract (in case
he paid such expenses) must be reimbursed. (See Taylor v. Rawlins,
86 Fla. 279).].
GENERAL RULE BASED ON EQUITY
- In general, it may be said that whenever the plaintiff is
shown to be legally or morally bound to restore or
reimburse, he must do so. (See 44 Am. Jur. 53; see also Nellis
v. Minton, 91 Okla. 75). This is because “He who comes to
equity must do equity” and because the precise purpose of
the action is merely to quiet title and not to obtain some
pecuniary benefits.
Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of
title are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with
this Code.
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CIVIL CODE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF
THE GENERAL LAW ON THE SUBJECT
- In case of conflict between the Civil Code and the principles
of the general law on the quieting of title, the former (CIVIL
CODE) shall prevail.
SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES
a. Regarding Defenses: The defendant can win if he can prove:
1. that the plaintiff DOES NOT HAVE LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE TITLE. (51 C.J. 197). (This is because under
Art. 477, title is required.)
2. that the defendant has acquired the ownership by, for
example, ADVERSE POSSESSION.
3. that the case has already been previously decided
between the parties on the same issue — RES JUDICATA.
 4. that the defendant BECAME THE OWNER AFTER THE
ACTION HAD BEEN FILED, BUT BEFORE HE FILED HIS
ANSWER (as by succession, donation, etc.). (See 44 Am.
Jur. 45-46).
5. that THE ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED, the plaintiff being
outside of possession. (44 Am. Jur. 46-47).
b. Regarding the Reliefs Given:
1. UNAUTHORIZED MORTGAGES MAY BE CANCELLED.
(Brown v. Brown, 97 Ga. 531).
2. In an ordinary case, the defendant may in his counter-
claim ASK FOR QUIETING OF TITLE AS AGAINST THE
PLAINTIFF. (This can be done if the court has
jurisdiction, in order to settle all conflicting claims.)
3. INJUNCTION may be availed of such as a prohibition to
destroy certain properties or to gather fruits from the
land in question.
Art. 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal
of a cloud therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court
as the Supreme Court shall promulgated.
RULES OF PROCEDURE TO BE FRAMED BY SUPREME COURT
- The Article explains itself.
SOME RULES OF PROCEDURE (PERTINENT TO THE SUBJECT)
AS ENUNCIATED BY AMERICAN COURTS
a. the venue of the action is determined by the situation or
location of the premises, and not by the residence of the
party. (Nugent v. Parsel, 63 Miss. 99).
b. The process or notice should accurately describe the
property and state in general terms the nature and
extent of the plaintiff’s claim. (richards v. moran, 137 iowa
220).
c. the suit cannot be brought in the name of one party for
the use and benefit of another (Peck v. Sims, 120 Ind. 345);
is not only may (New Orleans Nat. Bank v. Raymond, 29 La.
Ann. 355) but must be prosecuted in the name of the real
party in interest. (Peck v. Sims, 120 Ind. 345).
d. In a suit for the quieting of title, the actual possessor at the
time of the filing of the action must be respected in his
possession until after there is an adjudication on the
merits. If said actual possessor is disturbed in the meantime
by the other party, the former is entitled to a writ of
preliminary injunction against said disturbers. (Catalino
Balbino, et al. v. Hon. Wenceslao M. Ortega, et al., L-14231,
Apr. 28, 1962)
PROBLEM
A died intestate, leaving no debts and no administrator of the estate.
During his lifetime, A executed an invalid mortgage with B. May the
heirs of A bring an action to cancel the deed of mortgage because it
is void and is a cloud on their title?
- ANS.: Yes. Where one dies in the manner set forth above, all
the heirs of the decedent may jointly maintain an action to
cancel a deed of their ancestor, upon the ground that it is
illegal and void, and is a cloud upon their title
WHEN THE ACTION TO QUIET TITLE WILL NOT PROSPER
a. if it is merely an action to settle a dispute concerning
boundaries. (78 ALR 58; Anastacia Vda. de Aviles v. CA, 76
SCAD 396, GR 95748, Nov. 21, 1996).
 b. if the case merely involves the proper interpretation
and meaning of a contract or document. (78 ALR 21).
c. if the plaintiff has no title, either legal or equitable. (Art.
477).
d. if the action has prescribed and the plaintiff is not in
possession of the property. (Ford v. Clendennim, 215 N.Y.
10).
e. if the contract, instrument, etc. is void on its face.
(Thompson v. Peck, 219 Fed. 624).
- (For instance, assume that X, armed with a certain
document, seeks to eject Y. If the document on its face is so
defective that Y does not even have to present rebuttal
evidence, the document may be said to be void on its face. In
a case like this, Y, to protect his rights, does not have to bring
an action to quiet title. (See Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127).
f. if it is a mere claim or assertion (whether oral or written)
unless such claim has been made in a court action (78 ALR 83)
or the claim asserts that an instrument or entry in behalf of
the plaintiff is not really what it appears to be.
WHAT THE COURT’S TASK IS
- In an action for quieting of title, the court is tasked to
determine the respective rights of the parties so that the
complaint and those claiming under him may be forever free
from any danger of hostile claim.