Anda di halaman 1dari 3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


8th Judicial Region
Branch ______
City of Tacloban

KHLOE MARIELLE DE LA CRUZ,


Plaintiffs,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. _______


FOR: Quieting of Title with
Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction

ASHTON PAMINTUAN,
Defendant.

x-----------------------------------x

DECISION

At bar is a complaint for quieting of Title filed by Plaintiff Khloe Marielle de la Cruz
against Defendant Ashton Pamintuan.

FACTS OF THE CASE

As gleaned from the complaint lodge by Plaintiff, the latter avers that her mother,
Julia de la Cruz out of pity let a friend, herein defendant Pamintuan borrow the Transfer
Certificate of Title of her paraphernal lot to secure the latters loan. After the demise of
the former, the only heir of the deceased (herein plaintiff) found out that said lot had
been subjected to a Conditional Sale between her deceased mother and the defendant,
hence, the filing of a complaint for Quieting of Title with Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction.

Plaintiff alleges that the purported sale between the Defendant and Plaintiffs
mother is invalid considering that no sale took place at the knowledge of Plaintiff.
Furthermore, the father of plaintiff who was still alive during the disposition of the
property did not consent to said transaction. Hence, no sale took place and that the
property remained with the de la Cruz estate.

Upon the demise of the plaintiffs mother, herein plaintiff now claims legal title
over the property being the sole heir of the deceased owner. She now prays that the sale
which is now the subject of registration with the Register of Deeds, be declared
invalid/void, so that the subject property be transferred to the legal owner thereof which
is the Plaintiff.
On the other hand, Defendant denies that the sale between Defendant and the
late Julia de la Cruz is null and void. Defendant presented evidences to support their claim.
Accordingly, the Defendant and the late Julia de la Cruz initially entered into a deed of
conditional sale. However, upon payment of consideration and fulfillment of the
stipulated conditions thereof, the sale became absolute, thus executing another deed of
absolute sale.

Receipts of payment made were presented by the Defendant. Also, the alleged
forgery was controverted upon showing that the signatures made by Julia de la Cruz is
genuine.

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

A quiet title action, or an action to remove cloud on title, is a remedy which


originated in the courts of equity. Such proceedings have for their purpose an
adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the
claimant, is invalid, with the result that the claimant and those claiming under him may
forever be free from danger of the hostile claim.

The basis of equitable relief for removal of a cloud in title is the principle that,
because of the inadequacy of the remedy at law, a deed or other instrument or
proceedings constituting the cloud may not be used injuriously or vexatiously to
embarrass or affect the title of a plaintiff in possession. Stated differently, such remedy
was developed by courts of equity, to prevent multiplicity of actions, and, against
repeated or continued trespasses or continuing or recurring invasion of property rights.
Suits to quiet or remove a cloud from title developed from what were anciently termed
bills quia timet or bills of peace, remedies which originated in and appertained to the
jurisdiction of the courts of chancery.

Article 476 and 478 of the New Civil Code provide that, 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, or has been
extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive prescription, and
may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to
quiet the title.

Article 477 of the same Code provides that, the party who may bring an action to
quiet title must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is
the subject matter of the action.

Thus, for an action to quiet title to prosper, two (2) indispensable requisites must
concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or
interest in the real property subject of 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.

In the present case, it is clear that Plaintiff possesses legal title to the subject
property since she is the sole heir of the late Julia de la Cruz. As she validly wants to
claim property that she lawfully owns in her name, Plaintiff now sought the proper
remedy of quieting of title as there exist a deed, the alleged conditional sale between
the Defendant and Plaintiffs mother. All the essential requisites to validly enforce the
claim of Plaintiff have been well established.
With regards the want of consent, when Julia de la Cruz allegedly sold the parcel
of land which is part of the absolute community of the spouses, the provisions of the
Family Code should be taken into consideration and upheld. The law requires that the
disposition of a conjugal property by the husband as administrator in appropriate cases
requires the written consent of the wife; otherwise, the disposition is void. Thus, Article
124 of the Family Code provides:
Art. 124. x x x In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to
participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume
sole powers of administration. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or
encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the
other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance
shall be void. x x x
There is no showing that Julias husband is incapacitated or is unable to
participate in the administration of the conjugal properties. Thus, to validate the deed
of sale, a written consent of Julias spouse is required. Without it being attached or
presented as evidence, it is clear that the Deed of Sale allegedly contracted by plaintiffs
mother and the defendant is void and did not convey transfer of title and ownership of
the subject land.

If the written consent of the other spouse cannot be obtained or is being


withheld, the matter may be brought to court which will give such authority if the same
is warranted by the circumstances. However, it should be stressed that court
authorization under Article 124 is only resorted to in cases where the spouse who does
not give consent is incapacitated. In this case, defendant failed to allege and prove that
Anton de la Cruz, Julias husband, was incapacitated to give his consent to the contract.
In the absence of such showing of the husband's incapacity, court authorization cannot
be sought.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the


Plaintiff as the lawful owner of the disputed land and hereby declaring the deed of
absolute sale between Ashton Pamintuan and Julia de la Cruz null and void.

The court also orders the Registrar of Deeds of Tacloban to refrain from continuing
the registration proceedings of the property in favor of the Defendant in view of the
nullity of the subject deed.

SO ORDERED.

City of Tacloban. February 9, 2016.

PENELOPE T. CRUZ
Presiding Judge