Phil Ville Dev.

&
Housing Corp. vs
Maximo Bonifacio, et
al. 8 June 2011
GR No. 167391,
 iss
Whether or ue
not the TCT No.
C314537 in the name of Eleuteria
Rivera constitutes a cloud over
Phil Ville’s title.
MWSS v CA & Heirs of Gonzaga v CA (1992 & 1996)
Declared the OCT 994 registered on 3 May 1917 void

Manotok Realty v CLT Realty Dev Corp. (2009)

Rules
(motion for reconsideration)
OCT No. 994 registered on 3 May 1917 is the valid mother titled
and OCT No. 994 dated April 1917 is inexistent

ART. 476
Whenever there is a cloud on title…an action may be brought to
remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

Heirs of Toring v Heirs of Boquilaga

The nature of an action is determined by the material
allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief
sought.

Sec. 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court

 Analysis of Facts
On 24 July 1984, Phil Ville Dev. & Housing
Corp. bought the disputed parcels of land
(which form part of Maysilo Estate covered
by OCT No. 994 dated 3 May 1917 in the
name of Isabel Gil de Sola) from N. Dela
Merced and Sons, Inc.
 RTC had no
jurisdiction; OCT No.
27 Sept. 1961
petition for
Analysis of Facts 994 (April) is valid

22 Feb. 1997 23 Apr. 1997 7 Oct. 1997 Sen. M.

substitution of 31 Jan.
Eleuteria DOJ Order Fernan filed Res. No.
names on OCT No. 2005
Rivera died No. 137 1032
994 and was granted reversed
on 25 May 1962 at the age of by the CA
96

22 May 1996 motion for

partition and segregation 5 June 1997 Phil 24 Mar. 2000 RTC
of portions of the Ville filed a Caloocan ordered the
property covered by Declared void on complaint for quieting of Phil Ville’s
OCT No. 994 19 Feb. 1997 quieting of title title and that Phil
Ville’s TCTs are valid.
9 Sept. 1996, RTC
Caloocan granted the Writ of Possession • Deed of Absolute Sale (May OCT)
motion which became Notice to Vacate • Proyecto de Particion de la Hacienda de
final on 12 Dec. 1996 Maysilo
 Phil-Ville
Rightful owner of the property due to
the Deed of Absolute Sale (May OCT
No. 994) and the Proyecto de Particion de
la Hacienda Maysilo;
According to the findings of DOJ and
Senate, OCT No. 994 dated 3 May 1917 is
the mother title;
The trial court had jurisdiction to hear
the action since it is one for quieting of
title.
Bonifacio et al.
Rightful owner because of Rivera, et al.
were substituted in place of Maria de la
Concepcion Vidal (April OCT No. 994);
MWSS and Gonzaga cases are binding;
therefore, the April OCT is the mother
title;
Phil-Ville’s action is one for annulment
of the 25 May 1962 judgment; hence,
RTC had no jurisdiction over the case.
Quieting of Title
Common law remedy for the removal of any
cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty affecting
title to real property.

Requisites of Quieting of Title

1. Complainant has legal or equitable title or
interest in the real property subject of the
action;
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
prima facie appearance of validity or legal
efficacy.
AnElements of Cloud
action for on Title
declaratory relief
• 1.There
Any has been no record,
instrument, actual breach
claim
of encumbrance
instrumentsor involved
proceeding;or of
2.the rights
Which is arising thereunder.
apparently valid or
• To effective;
secure an authoritative
3.statement
But in of truththeandrights
in factand
obligations of the parties
invalid, ineffective, under
voidable
a or
statute, deed, or contract and
unenforceable;
4.not to settle
May issues arising
be prejudicial to from
the
an title
alleged breach
sought to thereof.
be quieted.
Phil
The TCT inVille has
the name
successfully
of Rivera is not
established
the same with Phil-its
Ville’s
ownershiptitle.
over the
properties and the