Right of Accession (Art. 440-475) PERO QUIETING OF TITLE 476 ONWARDS TALAGA TO.

Heirs of Pocdo v. Avila, G.R. No. 199146, 19 March 2014

Facts:
Pocdo Pool began to occupy and claim 3 parcels of land. The lands were eventually
surveyed in his name. When he died, his heirs reopened judicial proceedings before the CFI of
Baguio City. The registration of the claims on the lands were granted, but since the decision was
not implemented within the 10 years prescribed, the heirs filed their ancestral lands claim with
the DENR instead.

In the meantime, Polon Pocdo, heir of Pocdo Pool, ceded his rights over the three lots to
Pacifico Pocdo in exchange for 1 hectare lot to be taken from part of one of the lots. Pacfico
entered into a contract with Florecio Pax and Braulio Yaranon, in effect revoking the agreement
with Polon.

Polon filed a complaint before the Office of the Barangay Captain, which resulted in an
amicable settlement. The settlement resulted in the two heirs retaining a certain portion of the
lots and the remaining 1-hectare share of Polon to be taken from part of one of the lots.

Polon entered into a “Catulagan” (Kasunduan ata pero Ilocano(?) term) with Arsenia
Avila, authorizing Avila to undertake the segregation of his 1-hectare lot gained from the
amicable settlement. In exchange, 2000 sq m. from the 1-hectare lot will be awarded to her.

When she finished the survey, Polon executed a Waiver of Rights, and subsequently the
subdivided lots of Polon and Arsenia were both declared for tax purposes. The CENRO of
Baguio City then issued a Certificate of Exclusion in favor of Avila.

When Polon Pocdo died, the heirs and his widow filed an Affidavit of Cancellation with
the OIC-CENRO to cancel the Certificate of Exclusion, which was granted. This was complained
to the Regional Executive Director (RED) by Avila. She also filed an administrative complaint
against the OIC-CENRO.

The RED set aside the revocation, and restored to Avila the Certificate of Exclusion. He
also referred the administrative complaint to the DENR Secretary. The Secretary affirmed the
RED’s order of dismissing the Affidavit of Cancellation, upholding the Amicable Settlement,
Catulagan, Deed of Waiver of Rights. Elevated to the Office of the President, the previous
decisions were merely affirmed.

Out of administrative remedies, the case was filed before the RTC by Pacifico Pocdo.
The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The case was elevated to the CA, which
ruled that the petitioner heirs failed to allege any legal equitable title to quiet. It explains that
under Art. 477 of the CC, the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real
property in order to file a valid action to quiet title (or accion reivindicatoria for that matter).
 As to the Catulagan and Waiver of Rights, the CA held that the heirs were not parties to
the agreements, thus they have no right to question these.

Issue:
Whether the petitioner heirs have no title to the property that would support an action for
quieting of title when the trial had not yet commenced or not.

Ruling:
They have no title over the property. The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

It was discovered later that the subject property had actually been classified as public
land located in the Baguio Townsite Reservation. The registrations made were of no effect, and
that the CFI of Baguio and Benguet had no jurisdiction to order the registration of the lands
already declared public in separate Civil Reservation Case.

The Court also expounds on Action for Quieting of Title, which is an action
seeking for an adjudication that a claim of title or interest in property adverse to the
claimant is invalid, to free him from the dangers of a hostile claim, and to remove the
clouds of doubt.

Under Art. 476 and 477 of the CC, Quieting of Title has 2 requisites:

1. Plaintiff has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the
action.
2. There is a cloud on his title by reason of any instrument, record, deed, claim,
encumbrance, or proceeding, which must be shown to be in fact invalid or
inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity.