Spouses Milo and Chita, predecessors-in-interest of spouses Calacala, are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated in Pangasinan. Milo and Chita used their land as a property bond in order to secure the provisional release of friend, who stood as accused in a criminal case.
For failure of their friend to appear at his scheduled arraignment, the court ordered the bond forfeited in favor of the government, and, following the bondman’s failure to produce in court the body of the accused, rendered judgment against the bond. The court issued a writ of execution directing the provincial sheriff to effect a levy on the spouses’ parcel of land and to sell the same at a public auction to satisfy the amount of the bond.
Not long thereafter, a public auction of the subject parcel of land was held, at which the Republic of the Philippines emerged as the highest bidder. A Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was issued in favor of the Republic.
The same Certificate of Sale was registered and annotated on the title, thereby giving the spouses Calacala a period of one (1) year therefrom within which to redeem their property. Unfortunately, they never did up to the time of the respective deaths of Sps. Calacala.
Claiming ownership of the same land as legal heirs of the Sps. Calacala, their children, Mel, Gas and Bal filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Cancellation of Encumbrance against the Republic of the Philippines and the sheriff who conducted the auction sale.
The Republic filed sought the dismissal of the complaint grounded on the (1) complaint’s failure to state a cause of action and (2) prescription of the plaintiffs’ right to redeem. The Calacala boys counter argued that when the Republic’s rights over the land in question had either prescribed, been abandoned or waived since the Republic, despite the lapse 19 years, did not secure the necessary Certificate of Final Sale and Writ of Possession and even failed to execute an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership.
Q: What is an action for quieting of title?
A: Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. 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.
Q: What is the principal task of the court in actions for quieting of title?
A: The court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, x x x 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.
Q: When can action for quieting of title may be availed of?
A: Under Article 476 of the New Civil Code, the remedy may be availed of only when, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding, which appears valid but is, in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, a cloud is thereby cast on the complainant’s title to real property or any interest therein.
Q: When can action to quiet title prosper?
A: 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.
Q: Is the complaint filed by the Calacala boys dismissible or not?
A: Yes. The Calacala boys are not holders of any legal title over the property and are bereft of any equitable claim thereon, the very first requisite of an action to quiet title. The plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest lost whatever right they had over land in question from the very moment they failed to redeem it during the redemption period.
There is no law to the effect that the failure of a buyer in a foreclosure sale to secure a Certificate of Final Sale, execute an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and obtain a writ of possession over the property thus acquired, within 10 years from the registration of the Certificate of Sale will operate to bring ownership back to him whose property has been previously foreclosed and sold. Moreover, the Republic’s failure to do anything within 10 years or more following the registration of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale cannot give rise to a presumption that it has thereby waived or abandoned its right of ownership or that it has prescribed, “for prescription does not lie against the government”, nor could it “be bound or stopped by the negligence or mistakes of its officials and employees.”
Too, the expiration of that one-year period forecloses the owner’s right to redeem, thus making the sheriff’s sale absolute. The issuance thereafter of a final deed of sale becomes a mere formality, an act merely confirmatory of the title that is already in the purchaser and constituting official evidence of that fact.
(Source: Calacala vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 154415. July 28, 2005)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis Dean, Lyceum of the Philippines University Chairperson, Philippine Association of Law Schools Mawis Law Office