Professional Documents
Culture Documents
when he is in possession. One who claims property which is in the possession of another must,
it seems, invoke his remedy within the statutory period."
- Petitioners action was not subject to prescription. The petition is GRANTED.
12, 1992 was executed by petitioner and between Oakland Development Resources Corporation.
However, despite the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Oakland Development
Resources Corporation failed to cause the transfer of title to plaintiffs.
Petitioner took possession of the property and resided thereat together with their relatives
who continued to occupy the same whenever the plaintiffs would leave for Italy where they both
worked from May of 1989 up to the present date and were in continuous and notorious possession of
the property to the exclusion of others and in the concept of an owner.
Petitioners proceeded forthwith to Supreme Court for review on certiorari5 raising only a pure
question of law.6
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.
- In an order3 dated February 3, 2000, the RTC granted the motion. Characterizing the suit as an
action "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff" which, according to Article 1146 of the
Civil Code,4 must be filed within four years, the RTC held that petitioners action was barred by
prescription for having been filed more than four years after the registration of the execution
sale.
Edesito and Consorcia Ragasa filed a complaint1 against private respondents Gerardo
and Rodriga Roa and the ex-officio sheriff of Quezon City.
To make out an action to quiet title under the foregoing provision, the initiatory
pleading has only to set forth allegations showing that (1) the plaintiff has "title to real
property or any interest therein"7 and (2) the defendant claims an interest therein adverse to
the plaintiffs arising from an "instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding which is
apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable."8 Thus, the averments in petitioners complaint that (1) they acquired
ownership of a piece of land by tradition or delivery as a consequence of sale and (2) private
respondents subsequently purchased the same piece of land at an allegedly void execution
sale were sufficient to make out an action to quiet title under Article 476.
In March of 1992, petitioner were able to fully pay for the agreed purchase price of the
property and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March
"The prevailing rule is that the right of a plaintiff to have his title to land quieted, as against
one who is asserting some adverse claim or lien thereon, is not barred while the plaintiff or his
grantors remain in actual possession of the land, claiming to be owners thereof, the reason for
this rule being that while the owner in fee continues liable to an action, proceeding, or suit
upon the adverse claim, he has a continuing right to the aid of a court of equity 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. But the rule that the statute of limitations is not available as a defense to
an action to remove a cloud from title can only be invoked by a complain[ant]