Spouses Mamadsual vs Moson, Spouses Macarapan et al.

(Art. 476)

GR No. 92557
Sept. 27, 1990

FACTS

On November 14, 1988, Spouses Mamadsual filed a complaint against Spouses Macarapan for "Quieting
of Title To Property, Annulment of Original Certificates of Title Nos. P-122 and P-138, and Damages,
With Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction" with the Shari'a District Court, 5th Shari'a District at
Cotabato City.

Spouses Mamadsual claimed that they have been in open continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession of the land since time immemorial in the concept of owners.

Recently, Spouses Macarapan, who successfully caused the registration of subject property under their
name in the Registry of Deeds of Cotabato, have disturbed Spouses Mamadsual’s possession of the
property by surreptitiously constructing dikes.

Spouses Macarapan argued that:

1. Spouses Mamadsual had no title to the property; hence their action to quiet title
thereto is not proper.

2. The action being based on an implied trust, had already prescribed and could not
therefore maintained.

On the other hand, Spouses Mamadsual countered that:

1. The title referred to by them in the complaint meant the legal title or ownership or
dominion over the land in dispute acquired by them from their ancestors by operation
of the law on succession.

2. Since they are in possession of the land, an action to quite title does not prescribe.

The Shari’a District Court dismissed the complaint of Spouses Mamadsual on the ground that

• it had prescribed,

• it also held that an action to quiet title the Spouses Mamadsual must have legal or equitable
title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. (Art 477 of
NCC)

It interpreted legal title to mean registered ownership and equitable title to mean beneficial ownership.
ISSUES

1. WON the Spouses Mamadsual have a legal or equitable title to, or interest in the subject real
property, applying Art. 477.
2. Whether or not the action to quiet the title by Spouses Mamadsual has prescribed.

RULING

1. YES. Spouses Mamadsual have an equitable title to, or interest in the said property.

It is not necessary that the person seeking to quiet his title is the registered owner of the
property in question.

In Chacon Enterprises vs. CA, this Court considered the action to be one for quieting of title
where the plaintiffs alleged ownership and actual possession since time immemorial of the
property in question by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest, while
defendants secured a certificate of title over said property through fraud, misrepresentation
and deceit.

Thus, “title” to property does not necessarily mean the original transfer certificate of title.

It can connote acquisitive prescription by possession in the concept of an owner thereof.

Indeed, one who has equitable right or interest in the property may also file an action to quiet
title under the law.

2. NO. The spouses’ action to quiet the title has not prescribed.

A reading of the complaint shows that it is an action for quieting title. Therein, it is alleged that
Spouses Mamadsual are in "actual, continuous, and adverse possession" of the land in question
"since time immemorial" in the concept of owners.

In Sapto, et al. vs. Fabiana, this Court held: that actions to quiet title to property in the
possession of the plaintiff are imprescriptible.

In the same complaint, Spouses Mamadsual allege that recently Spouses Macarapan have
disturbed their possession of the property by surreptitiously constructing dikes. The rule is that
the Spouses Mamadsual may wait until their possession is disturbed or their title is attacked
before they may take steps to vindicate their right. The statute of limitation is not available as a
defense to an action to remove a cloud from title over property in possession of the Spouses
Mamadsual.