PROPERTY DIGEST POOL

A.Y. 2021 – 2022

187633
Case Title: HEIRS OF TAPPA V. HEIRS OF BACUD G.R. No:
04 April
Topic: Quieting of Title Date:
2016
Tickler: Spouses claim to be owners by virtue of Free Patent; 3 other owners
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.

The settled rule is that a free patent issued over a private land is null and void, and
produces no legal effects, whatsoever.

Although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence
Doctrine/s:
of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one
in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or
constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title
over the property.

A cloud on a title exists when (1) there is an instrument (deed, or contract) or record or
claim or encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is apparently valid or effective; (3) but
is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable or extinguished
(or terminated) or barred by extinctive prescription; and (4) and may be prejudicial to
the title.
FACTS
Case Type: Petition for Review on Certiorari
Petitioners Delfin Tappa and Maria Tappa (Spouses Tappa) filed a complaint for
Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession and Damages respondents Jose Bacud, Henry
Calabazaron, and Vicente Malupeng. The property subject of the complaint is a parcel
of land identified as Lot No. 3341, Kongcong, Cabbo, Pefiablanca, Cagayan. Spouses
Tappa alleged that they are the registered owners of Lot No. 3341, having been issued
an OCT No. P-69103on September 18, 1992, by virtue of Free Patent No. 021519-92-
3194. Delfin allegedly inherited Lot No. 3341 from his father, Lorenzo Tappa. Spouses
Tappa claimed that both Delfin and Lorenzo were in open, continuous, notorious,
exclusive possession of the lot since time immemorial.

Respondents Bacud, Calabazaron and Malupeng claimed that the original owner of Lot
No. 3341 was Genaro Tappa who had two children, Lorenzo and Irene. Upon Genaro's
death, the property passed on to Lorenzo and Irene by operation of law; and they
General
became ipso facto co-owners of the property. As co-owners, Lorenzo and Irene each
Facts
owned 10,939 square meters of the lot as their respective shares. Lorenzo had children
namely, Delfin, Primitiva, and Fermina. Upon the death of Irene, her share in tum passed
to her heirs, Demetria, Juanita, Pantaleon and Jose Bacud.

Respondents presented before the RTC a joint affidavit (1963 Affidavit) signed by
Delfin, his sisters, Primitiva and Fermina, and their mother, Modesta Angoluan, stating
that Genaro originally owned Lot No. 3341. It further stated that one-half of the property
was owned by Lorenzo; but that the whole property was declared as his, only for
taxation purposes.

Respondents started occupying their respective portions after the sale made to each of
them. They continued to occupy them despite several demands to vacate from Spouses
Tappa.
Spouses Tappa claimed that the 1963 Affidavit was executed through force and
Petitioner’s intimidation. Bacud and Malupeng denied this allegation.
Contention

U.I.O.G.D.

Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana
 PROPERTY DIGEST POOL
A.Y. 2021 – 2022

1. Calabazaron claimed that he became the owner of 2,520 square meters of Lot
No. 3341 by virtue of two Deeds of Sale executed in his favor, one by Demetria
(1970) and another by Juanita (1971). After the sale, Calabazaron entered into
possession of his portion and paid the real property taxes. He remains in
possession up to this date.
2. Malupeng, on the other hand, claimed that he became the owner of 210 square
Respondent’s
meters of Lot No. 3341 by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed in 1970 by
Contention
Pantaleon in his favor. After the sale, Malupeng entered into possession of his
portion of property and paid the real property taxes. He remains in possession
up to this date.
3. Bacud claimed ownership over 1,690 square meters of Lot No. 3341 in his own
right as heir of Irene.

RTC ruled in favor of plaintiffs, and held that 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 Maria enjoys.
Trial Court’s
Decision
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. 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 against documents such as titles.
The CA set aside the decision of the RTC. On the issue of prescription, the CA ruled in
favor of respondents and explained that their possession over Lot No. 3341 already
ripened into ownership through acquisitive prescription. The CA noted that Spouses
Tappa acknowledged in their complaint that they have not been in possession of the lot,
and that respondents have been continuously occupying portions of it since 1963.

On the merits of the case, the 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
an interest in the property. The CA explained that the free patent granted to Spouses
Tappa produced no legal effect because Lot No. 3341 was a private land.
CA’s
Decision
The CA further stated that while Spouses Tappa were able to obtain a free patent over
the property, and were able to register it under the Torrens system, they have not become
its owners. The CA said that "[r]egistration 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.
ISSUE/S

Whether or not the action for quieting of title should prosper. – NO

RULING

U.I.O.G.D.

Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana
 PROPERTY DIGEST POOL
A.Y. 2021 – 2022

The action filed by Spouses Tappa was one for quieting of title and recovery of possession. 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. x x x. "

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.

Spouses Tappa failed to meet these two requisites. First, Spouses Tappa's claim of legal title over Lot
No. 3341 by virtue of the free patent and the certificate of title, OCT No. P-69103 issued in their name
cannot stand. The certificate of title indicates that it was issued by virtue of Patent No. 021519-92-3194.
We agree with the CA that at the time of the application for free patent, Lot No. 3341 had already become
private land by virtue of the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession by respondents.
Hence, Lot No. 3341 had been removed from the coverage of the Public Land Act, which governs public
patent applications.

The settled rule is that a free patent issued over a private land is null and void, and produces no legal
effects, whatsoever. Private ownership of land-as when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a
duly registered possessory information or a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession, by present or previous occupants-is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the
same land, because the Public Land Law applies only to lands of the public domain. The Director of
Lands has no authority to grant free patent to lands that have ceased to be public in character and have
passed to private ownership.

In this case, the parties were able to show that Lot No. 3341 was occupied by, and has been in possession
of the Tappa family, even before the 1963 Affidavit was executed. After the execution of the 1963
Affidavit, respondents occupied their respective portions of the property. Delfin testified that before his
father, Lorenzo, died in 1961, Lorenzo had been occupying the lot since before the war, and that Delfin
was born there in 1934.

Records show that Lorenzo declared Lot No. 3341 for taxation purposes as early as 1948, and paid the
real property taxes (evidenced by real property tax payment receipts in the name of Lorenzo from 1952
until his death in 1961). Spouses Tappa were likewise shown to pay the real property taxes from 1961 to
2000. Similarly, respondents also declared their respective portions of Lot No. 3341 for taxation in their
names in 1994, and paid real property taxes on those portions from 1967 to 2004. Although tax
declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are
good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes
for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the
holder has a claim of title over the property.

U.I.O.G.D.

Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana
 PROPERTY DIGEST POOL
A.Y. 2021 – 2022

Spouses Tappa also admitted in their complaint that sometime in 1963, Bacud and Malupeng started
occupying portions of Lot No. 3341 and planted crops on the property, while Calabazaron did the same
on another portion of the lot in the 1970's. The complaint stated further that since 1963. the respondents
"continuously occupied portion of the subject land."

In view of the foregoing circumstances that show open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of Lot No. 3341, the property had been segregated from the public
domain. At the time the patent and the certificate of title were issued in 1992, Spouses Tappa and
their predecessors-in-interest were already in possession, at least to the half of the lot, since 1934;
and respondents were also in possession of the other half since 1963. Therefore, the free patent
issued covers a land already segregated from the public domain.

Records also show that Spouses Tappa were aware of respondents' possession of the disputed portions
of Lot No. 3341. They even admitted such possession (since 1963) by respondents in their complaint
filed in 1999. Despite this, Spouses Tappa were able to obtain a free patent of the whole property even if
they were not in possession of some of its portions. Therefore, Free Patent No. 021519-92-3194 and OCT
No. P-69103 are void not only because it covers a private land, but also because they fraudulently
included76 respondents' portion of the property. In Avila v. Tapucar, we held that "[i]f a person obtains
a title under the Torrens system, which includes by mistake or oversight land which can no longer be
registered under the system, he does not, by virtue of the said certificate alone, become the owner of the
lands illegally included."

In an action to quiet title, legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means
beneficial ownership. As discussed, the free patent and the certificate of title issued to Spouses
Tappa could not be the source of their legal title.

The second requisite for an action to quiet title is likewise wanting. We find that although an instrument
(the 1963 Affidavit) exists, and which allegedly casts cloud on Spouses Tappa's title, it was not shown
to be in fact invalid or ineffective against Spouses Tappa's rights to the property.

A cloud on a title exists when (1) there is an instrument (deed, or contract) or record or claim or
encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is apparently valid or effective; (3) but is, in truth and in
fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable or extinguished (or terminated) or barred by
extinctive prescription; and (4) and may be prejudicial to the title.

The 1963 Affidavit it is no doubt an instrument, which appears to be valid. It is dated and appears to be
executed and signed by Delfin, his mother, and sisters. It is also notarized by a public notary. It states
that Genaro originally owns the land described, and that one-half (l/2) of which is actually owned by
Irene as a co-heir. This is contrary to the claim of

Spouses Tappa that the property was solely Lorenzo's. Respondents argue that this affidavit evidences
the title of their predecessor-in-interest over Lot No. 3341 and effectively, theirs.

The 1963 Affidavit however, was not proven to be, in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable, or extinguished (or terminated) or barred by extinctive prescription. The CA correctly
found that Spouses Tappa's claim of force and intimidation in the execution of the 1963 Affidavit was
"unsubstantiated." The CA pointed out that, "[a]side from the testimony of Delfin Tappa, no other
evidence was presented to prove the claim of force and intimidation, hence, it is at most, self-serving."
Also, the 1963 Affidavit was duly notarized and, as such, is considered a public document, and enjoys
the presumption of validity as to its authenticity and due execution.

Thus, we affirm the ruling of the CA that the requisites for an action to quiet title are wanting in this
case.

U.I.O.G.D.

Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana