G.R. No. 167391
June 8, 2011
FACTS:
The
petitioner Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation is the registered
owner of three parcels of land located in Caloocan City, having a total area of
8,694 square meters and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos.
270921, 270922 and 270923.Prior to their subdivision, the lots were
collectively designated as Lot 1-G of the subdivision plan Psd-2731 registered
in the name of Phil-Ville under TCT No. T-148220.Said parcels of land form part
of Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate originally covered by Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 994 in the name
of Isabel Gil de Sola as the judicial administratrix of the estate of Gonzalo
Tuason and thirty-one others. Phil-Ville acquired the lots by purchase from N.
Dela Merced and Sons, Inc. on July 24, 1984.
Previously,
a group composed of Eleuteria Rivera, Bartolome P. Rivera, Josefa R. Aquino,
Gregorio R. Aquino, Pelagia R. Angeles, Modesta R. Angeles, Venancio R.
Angeles, Felipe R. Angeles Fidela R. Angeles and Rosauro R. Aquino, claiming to
be the heirs of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, a co-owner to the extent of
1-189/1000% of the properties covered by OCT Nos. 982, 983, 984, 985 and 994 of
the Hacienda Maysilo, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of
Rizal in Land Registration Case No. 4557 praying for the substitution of their
names on OCT No. 994 in place of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal. The petition was
granted by the CFI. Thereafter, the alleged heirs of Maria de la Concepcion
Vidal filed a petition for the partition of the properties covered by OCT Nos.
982, 983, 984, 985 and 994. On December 29, 1965, the CFI granted the petition
and appointed three commissioners to determine the most equitable division of
the properties. Said commissioners, however, failed to submit a recommendation.
After 31
years, Eleuteria Rivera filed a Supplemental Motion for the partition and
segregation of portions of the properties covered by OCT No. 994. The Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, of Caloocan City, through Judge Jaime D.
Discaya, to whom the case was transferred, granted said motion.Writ of
possession was issued in Eleuteria
Rivera’s favor upon the Order of Judge Discaya issued on the same date.
Accordingly, Sheriff Cesar L. Cruz served a Notice to Vacate upon
Phil-Ville, requiring it to vacate Lots 23-A and 28. Bonifacio Shopping Center,
Inc., which occupied Lot 28-A-2, was also served a copy of the notice.
Aggrieved, Bonifacio Shopping Center, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition, before the Court of Appeals. In a Decision, the appellate court
set aside and declared as void the Order and Writ of Possession and the Notice
to Vacate. The appellate court explained that a party who has not been
impleaded in a case cannot be bound by a writ of possession issued in
connection therewith.
Due to the
foregoing events, petitioner filed a complaint for quieting of title and
damages against the surviving heirs of Eleuteria Rivera Vda. de Bonifacio
(namely Maximo R. Bonifacio, Ceferino R. Bonifacio, Apolonia B. Tan, Benita B.
Caina, Crispina B. Pascual, Rosalia B. de Gracia, Teresita S. Doronia, Christina
B. Goco, Arsenio C. Bonifacio, Carmen B. Bernardino and Danilo C. Bonifacio)
and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City. In a Decision, the Caloocan RTC
ordered the quieting of Phil-Ville’s titles over Lots 1-G-1, 1-G-2 and 1-G-3,
declaring as valid TCT Nos. 270921, 270922 and 270923 in Phil-Ville’s name.
The
respondents filed a petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court referred the
petition to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits since the case
does not involve pure questions of law. Respondents moved for reconsideration
of the Resolution, but the Court denied their motion. Thus, respondents’
petition was transferred to the Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals rendered
a Decision dismissing the appeal as regards Danilo Bonifacio and Carmen
Bernardino. Danilo, Carmen and respondents elevated the case to the Supreme
Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether TCT
No. C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera constitutes a cloud over
petitioner’s titles over portions of Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate.
RULING:
The Supreme
Court ruled that in order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, two
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 cloud on his
title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance
of validity or legal efficacy. Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the
removal of any cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real
property. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest
in real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or
proceeding that 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. In such action, the competent court is tasked to determine the
respective rights of the complainant and the other claimants, not only to place
things in their proper places, and make the claimant, who has no rights to said
immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but also for the
benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt
over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce any
desired improvements, as well as use, and even abuse the property.
In this
case, the petitioner submits that a cloud exists over its titles because TCT
No. C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera purports to cover the same parcels
of land covered by petitioner’s TCT Nos. 270921, 270922 and 270923. It points
out that what appears to be a valid and effective TCT No. C-314537 is, in
truth, invalid because it covers Lot 23 which is not among those described in
the OCT No. 994 on file with the Register of Deeds of Rizal and registered on
May 3, 1917. Petitioner notes that the OCT No. 994 allegedly registered on
April 19, 1917 and from which TCT No. C-314537 was derived, is not found in the
records of the Register of Deeds. In other words, the action seeks the removal
of a cloud from Phil-Ville’s title and/or the confirmation of its ownership
over the disputed properties as the successor-in-interest of N. Dela Merced and
Sons, Inc.
While it is
true that TCT No. C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera is an instrument
that appeared to be valid but was subsequently shown to be invalid, it does not
cover the same parcels of land that are described in petitioner’s titles.
Foremost, Rivera’s title embraces a land measuring 14,391.54 square meters
while petitioner’s lands has an aggregate area of only 8,694 square meters. On
the one hand, it may be argued that petitioner’s land could be subsumed within
Rivera’s 14,391.54-square meter property. Yet, a comparison of the technical
descriptions of the parties’ titles negates an overlapping of their boundaries.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to
quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil
Code, may be brought under this Rule.
Thus, while petitioner was not able to demonstrate that respondents’ TCT No.
C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera constitutes a cloud over its title, it
has nevertheless successfully established its ownership over the subject
properties and the validity of its titles which entitles it to declaratory
relief.
No comments:
Post a Comment