Tappa Case Digest

G.R. No.
187633
HRS. OF DELFIN AND MARIA TAPPA, VS. HRS OF BACUD ET AL
RTC – the basic requirement of the law on quieting of title under Article 447 of
the Civil Code was met, thus:
Delfin and Maria’s title is clear and unequivocal, and its validity has never been
assailed by the defendants – nor has any evidence been adduced that successfully
overcomes the presumption of validity and legality that the title of Delfin and
Marie enjoys.
The RTC ruled that there was no document in the hands of respondents as strong
and persuasive as the title in the name of the Spouses Tappa that will support
respondents’ claim of ownership and Irene’s antecedent ownership.
The RTC stated that the 1963 Affidavit contains nothing more than the allegations
of the affiants and does not, by itself, constitute proof of ownership of land,
especially as against documents such as titles.
CA – ruled that the two indispensable requisites for an action to quiet title under
Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code were not met.
The first requisite is absent because Spouses Tappa do not have a legal or an
equitable title to or interest in the property. The CA explained that the free patent
granted to Sps Tappa produced no legal effect because Lot No. 3341 was a private
land…
…
The CA said that “registration has never been a mode of acquiring ownership over
immovable property – it does not create title nor vest one but it simply confirms a
title already vested, rendering it forever indefeasible.”
The second requisite that the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to
be casting cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of validity is likewise unavailing. The CA ruled
that no other evidence (aside from Delfin’s own testimony) was presented to
prove the allegation of fraud and intimidation, making the testimony self-serving.
In Baricuatro Jr. v. Court of Appeals, an action for quieting of title is essentially a

common law remedy grounded on equity, to wit:
X x x Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to secure” .. an

adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of
the complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him
may be forever afterward free from any danger of hostile claim.”
In an action for quieting of title, the competent court is tasked to determine the
respective rights of the complainant and other claimants”… not only to place
things in their proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable
respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who
has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he
could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use
and even to abuse the property as he deems best.”
In our jurisdiction, the remedy is governed by Article 476 and 477 of the Civil
Code, which state:
Art. 476. 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.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to
real property or any interest therein.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real
property which is the subject-matter of the action. He need not be in possession
of said property.
From the foregoing provisions, we reiterate the rule that for an action to quiet
title to prosper, two 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 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.

Tappa Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tappa Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tappa Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

In Baricuatro Jr. v. Court of Appeals, an action for quieting of title is essentially a

X x x Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to secure” .. an

You might also like