Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Severino Baricuatro Jr.

vs CA, Spouses Nemenio, Constantino Galeos and

Eugenio Amores
GR 105902, February 9, 2000
Baricuatro (now substituted by his legal heirs) bought two parcels of land-Lot 9
and 10 on installment basis from Galeos.
After the sale Baricuatro introduced improvements and resided therein in 1970.
Baricuatro was unable to pay Galeos in full amount that there was remaining
balance of 1K to Lot 9 and 3K to Lot 10. The title remained in Galeos.
Galeos sold the entire subdivision to Amores. Baricuatro was informed about the
sale and was advised to pay the balance to Amores.
In 1974, Amores sold Lot 9 and 10 to Spouses Nemenio. Baricuatro was informed
through letter by Amores about the sale but they failed to respond.
Spouses Nemenio caused the transfer of the titles to the said lots and the
issuance of tax declaration in their names.
Thereafter, Sps Nemenio demanded from the petitioner to vacate the said lots
but the latter refused to do so. Thus, complaint of quieting of title was filed by
Sps Nemenio.
Whether or not the complaint of quieting of title filed by Sps Nemenio will
Under 476 whenever there is cloud on title to real property by reason of
instrument, record, claim which is apparently valid or effective but it is 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 this case, both the 2nd (Amores) and 3rd (Sps Nemenio) are in bad faith.
Amores was not in good faith when he registered his titled, preponderance of evidence
showed that he already had knowledge of the previous sale of the disputed lots to
Baricuatro. As well to Spouses Nemenio, they cannot be considered in GF because it
appeared in the record that when they bought the lots in 1974, they only registered it on
1976 after he visited the residence of Baricuatro on the year 1975.
Hence, the complaint for quieting of title in favor of Spouses Nemenio will not
prosper and Severino Baricuatro is the legal owner of the lots.

National Grains Authority vs IAC, Melecio Magcamit, Nena Cosico and

Emelita Magcamit
GR no. 68741, January 1988
In 1972, Spouses Vivas and Lizardo sold to private respondents a parcel of land
for P90, 000; initially P50,000 after the execution of deed of absolute sale and
remaining P40,000 when certificate of title was issued.
In 1975, OCT was issued without the knowledge of the private respondents. It was
subsequently mortgaged to NGA.
The mortgaged was foreclosed when Spouses Vivas and Lizardo failed to pay their
indebtedness to NGA.
NGA was able to secure TCT title under its name. NGA asked the private
respondents to vacate the premises but the latter refused to do so. Hence,
petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against the PR.
Lower court rendered decision in favor of NGA, however it was reversed by CA.
hence present petition.
Whether or not breach of trust between Sps. Vivas and Lizardo and PR is
sufficient to defeat the title acquired by and innocent purchaser (NGA)?

The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to the land and to stop
forever any question as to its legality. 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.
In this case, NGA lawfully acquired the land after its foreclosure in public
auction. That NGA was never a privy between to the agreement of Sps. Vivas and
Lizardo and PR. Neither it was shown that it had any knowledge at the time of the
execution of mortgage, of existence of SCon in the deed of absolute sale.
Therefore, unquestionably, NGA is an innocent purchaser.
The court has ruled that a bank is not required before accepting a mortgage to make
an investigation of the title of the property being given as security. And where
innocent third persons like mortgagee relying on the certificate of title acquire rights
over the property, their rights cannot be disregarded.

Heirs of Uberas vs CFI Negros Occidental

GR 48268, October 30, 1978
Siblings Segundo, Albino, Francisca, Pedro and Alejandra inherited a parcel of
land from their parents.
The plaintiffs in this case are the heirs of Segundo and Albino while the
defendants are the heirs of Pedro and Alejandra. They are all co-owner and
possessor of the land in dispute.
Pedro and his wife allegedly persuaded Alejandra through deceit to sign the
declaration of heirship, stating falsely that they are the only surviving heirs of
their parents. It was later through fraud and deceit Alejandra agreed to sold her
inherited part to Pedro
A complaint was filed by the petitioner against the defendants for quieting of
title, recovery of possession and ownership, partition and reconveyance with
Defendants sought for dismissal on the ground that the action is barred by
On the other hand the plaintiff argued that the action is imprescriptible because
the issued raised was the quieting of title for partition and declaring heirship and
the deed of sale executed by the defendants as void ab initio.
The respondent court dismissed the case on the ground of prescription.
Whether or not action to quiet title to property in possession of the plaintiff is
In the case of Faja vs CA, an action to quiet title to property in possession of the
plaintiff is imprescriptible and that where there are material facts to be inquired into
and resolved on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties which will determine the
legal precepts to be applied, as in this case, the complaining party should be given full
opportunity to prove his case.
The respondent court was remanded by the SC not to summarily dismiss the case
on the ground of prescription notwithstanding contrary to factual averments in
complaint which would clearly rule out prescription.

Elias Gallar vs Hermenegilda Husain, et al and Bonifacio Husain

GR no. 20954, May 24, 1967
In 1919, Teodoro Husain is the owner of a hectare of land which was sold to
Serapio Chicirita for 30 pesos with the right of redemption within 6 years. The
deed of sale was executed in private instrument.
Teodoro did not redeem the land, shortly after the execution of deed of sale, his
sister Graciana Husain redeemed the land.
Graciana Husain subsequently transferred her rights to the land to Elias Gallar in
exchange of a cow. Gallar since then took possession of the land with duplicate
copy of certificate of title of Teodoro Hussain.
In 1960, Gallar filed suit against the children of Teodoro Hussain-Hermenegilda
and Bonifacio Husain (herein defendants) to compel them to execute a deed of
conveyance in his favor so he could get a transfer certificate of title.
The defendants denied the sale and contended that the agreement between theor
father and Chichirita was that of a mortgage to secure a loan of P30.00. They
claimed that the mortgage had been discharged when Graciana paid the debt to
Chichirita. They further contended that the action was already prescribed
Whether or not the action is already prescribed?

The action sought by the petitioner is not for specific performance; all it seeks is
to quiet the title, to remove all the cloud cast on appellees ownership as a result of
appellants refusal to recognize the sale made by their predecessor. And the as plaintiffappellee is in possession of the land, therefore, the action is imprescriptible.