HERMINIO M.

DE GUZMAN, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF:

NILO M. DE GUZMAN, ANGELINO DE GUZMAN, JOSEFINO M. DE GUZMAN,
ESTRELLA M. DE GUZMAN, TERESITA DE GUZMAN, ELSA MARGARITA M. DE
GUZMAN, EVELYN M. DE GUZMAN, MA. NIMIA M. DE GUZMAN, ANTOLIN M.
DE GUZMAN, and FERDINAND M. DEGUZMAN, Petitioners,
vs.
TABANGAO REALTY INCORPORATED, Respondent.
G.R. No. 154262, February 11, 2015

Nature of the Case:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners, challenging the (a) Order of the
Regional Trial Court, which granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent Tabangao Realty,
Inc. regarding the Complaint for quieting of title filed by petitioners against respondent; and (b)
Order of the same court in said case, which denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the
earlier Order.

Facts:
Serafin and Josefino De Guzman were in the business of distributing oil and lubricating
products of Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell). In the course of their business, they
eventually failed to pay their credit purchases from Shell. Shell filed before the RTC an action
for the payment of sum of money against Serafin and Josefino. RTC rendered judgement, which
thereafter became final and executory since Serafin and Josefino no longer appealed, in favor of
Shell, ordering Serafin and Josefino to pay their outstanding obligations to Shell. Shell levied
upon a parcel of land owned by Spouses Serafin and Amelia De Guzman. According to the
Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale, the subject property was sold at a public auction in favor of
respondent Tabangao Realty Incorporated (TRI). Spouses De Guzman did not redeem the subject
property within one year from registration of the Sherifff’s Certificate of Sale.

Petitioners filed a Complaint for quieting of title against respondent, in which the RTC
rendered a decision in favor of the respondents. In their complaint, petitioners alleged that they
were the children and only heirs of the deceased Spouses De Guzman and that the subject
property was still registered in spouses De Guzman’s names. They alleged that the Sheriff’s
Certificate of Sale to respondent and the Notice of Levy in favor of Shell is void for it is legally
impossible to do the levy and execution sale on the same date.

Issue:

May the Complaint for quieting of title against the respondent TRI prosper?

Held:

NO. (The Court rules in the negative.)

An action for quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud
upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. 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 improvement she may desire, to use, and even to
abuse the property as he deems best.

This action may be availed under Articles 476, 477 and 478 of the New Civil Code.

For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur:
1. the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real
property subject of the action; and
2. the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on his title
must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance
of validity or legal efficacy.

Petitioners’ Complaint failed to allege these two requisites for an action to quiet title.
There is an absence of any allegation in the Complaint that Serafin and/or Josefino redeemed
the subject property from respondent within the one-year redemption period, which,
reckoned from the date of registration of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale. The period of
redemption is not a prescriptive period but a condition precedent provided by law to restrict the
right of the person exercising redemption. If no redemption is made in the manner and within
the 1-year period prescribed, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and
acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the property as of
the time of the levy, pursuant to Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Respondent TRI was already substituted to and acquired all the rights, title,
interest, and claim of the Spouses De Guzman to the subject property when the one-year
redemption period expired. Upon the deaths of Spouses De Guzman, they had no more rights,
title, interest, and claim to the subject property to pass on by succession to petitioners as their
heirs.

Doctrine:

An action for quieting of title is a remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or
uncertainty with respect to title to real property. Its purpose is to secure an adjudication that a
claim of title to or an interest in property is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming
under him may be forever afterward free from any danger of hostile claim.
HEIRS OF MARGARITA PRODON, petitioners,
vs.
HEIRS OF MAXIMO S. ALVAREZ AND VALENTINA CLAVE, REPRESENTED BY
REV. MAXIMO ALVAREZ, JR., respondents.
G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013

Nature of the Case:

This appeal seeks the review and reversal of the decision of CA, where it reversed the judgment
RTC on the Complaint for quieting of title and damages filed by the respondents.

Facts:

Respondents (Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave) filed a complaint for
quieting of title and damages against Margarita Prodon, alleging that their parents, Spouses
Maximo Alvarez and Valentina Clave, were the registered owners of the subject parcel of land;
that their parents had been in possession of the property during their lifetime; that upon their
parents’ deaths, they had continued the possession of the property as heirs, paying the real
property taxes due thereon; that they could not locate the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT of
the subject land but the original copy on file with the Register of Deeds of Manila was intact;
that the original copy contained an entry stating that the property had been sold to Prodon subject
to the right of repurchase; and that the entry had been maliciously done by Prodon because the
deed of sale with right to repurchase covering the property did not exist.

In her answer, Prodon claimed that Maximo Alves had executed the deed of sale with
right to repurchase the subject land within six months, but since the latter failed to repurchase the
subject land within the 6-month period, the former become the absolute owner of such.

RTC dismissed the complaint of the respondent, finding untenable the plaintiffs’
contention that the deed of sale with right to repurchase did not exist. Applying the Best
Evidence Rule, it opined that although the deed itself could not be presented as evidence in court,
its contents could nevertheless be proved by secondary evidence upon proof of its execution or
existence and of the cause of its unavailability being without bad faith. Further, RTC found that
Prodon had established the execution and existence of the deed, despite the fact that the said
deed of sale has been lost and earnest efforts had been exerted to produce it before the court.
RTC believed in the testimony of Jose Camilon that he had handed the original to Atty.
Lacanilao, but he could not anymore retrieve such original from him because the latter had
suffered from a heart ailment and had been recuperating.

CA reversed the ruling of the RTC. CA finds that Maximo Alvarez as not physically able
to personally execute the deed of sale, since he was hospitalized, and suffered from paralysis of
half of his body and blindness due to cataract. Moreover, granting, in arguendo, that the deed of
sale did exist, the fact of its loss had not been duly established. CA finds that the secondary
evidence should not have been admitted because Prodon failed to prove the existence of the
original deed of sale and to establish its loss. It should be noted that Camilon never claimed that
Atty. Lacanilao was already too sick to even try looking for the copy he had.
Issue:

Whether or not the deed of sale with right to repurchase, duly executed by the late
Maximo Alvarez, had really existed.

Held:

NO. (The appeal has no merit.)

FIRST. THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE IS INAPPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.

The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving the terms of a written document the
original of the document must be produced in court. BUT, the Best Evidence Rule applies only
when the terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns
external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its
terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. The action for quieting of title may be based
on the fact that a deed is invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable. The terms of the writing
may or may not be material to an action for quieting of title, depending on the ground alleged by
the plaintiff.

In this case, the action for quieting of title does not involve the terms or contents of the
deed of sale with right to repurchase, since the main issue is whether or not the deed of sale with
right to repurchase had really existed. Hence, the Best Evidence Rule is inapplicable.

PRODON DID NOT PREPONDERANTLY ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE AND DUE

EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF SALE WITH RIGHT TO REPURCHASE.

Since Prodon alleged that the original deed of sale with right to repurchase was lost, she
is required to establish and explain the loss of such to establish the genuineness and due
execution of the deed. The record shows that Prodon did not adduce proof sufficient to show the
lossor explain the unavailability of the original as to justify the presentation of secondary
evidence. The testimony of Camilon that the original copy cannot be produced because of the
negative health condition of Atty. Lacanilao is inadequate. Moreover, a duplicate original could
have been secured from Notary Public, but no effort was shown to do such.

Supreme Court finds the testimony of the respondents, that Maximo Alvarez had been in
and out of the hospital around the time that the deed of sale with right to repurchase had been
supposedly executed and the medical condition of his prevents him to execute such deed,
persuasive.

Further, the annotation on the subject land’s TCT of the said deed of sale did not
themselves establish the existence of the deed. The registration alone of the deed was not
conclusive proof of its authenticity or its due execution by the registered owner of the property.
The explanation for this is that registration is simply a ministerial act by which an instrument is
inscribed in the records of the Register of Deeds and annotated on the dorsal side of the
certificate of title covering the land subject of the instrument.
 Lastly, respondents’ remaining in the peaceful possession of the property was further
convincing evidence demonstrating that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. did not execute the deed of
sale with right to repurchase.

Doctrine:

The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving the terms of a written document the
original of the document must be produced in court, but it applies only when the terms of a
writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as
the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Best
Evidence Rule cannot be invoked.