You are on page 1of 4

ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE

> Legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of the land which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the
latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him
> After one year from the issuance of the decree, may bring action for reconveyance of the
property
> Only to show that the person who secured the registration of the questioned property is not the
real owner thereof
> Seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner
> Property is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it is
registered
> Section 96 is the basis of this remedy

DECREE BECOMES INCONTROVERTIBLE AFTER 1


YEAR FROM THE ISSUANCE OF DECREE
> Action for reconveyance still available as remedy
> Action in personam that it is always as long as the property has not passed to an innocent
purchaser for value

RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS
1. That the plaintiff is the owner of the land
2. That the defendant has illegally disposed him of the same

ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE IS AN ACTION IN


PERSONAM
> Binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be
heard
> Directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments
> Court must have jurisdiction over the defendant

THE RTC HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER AN


ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE THE OWNERS OF
THE PROPERTY OVER WHICH RECONVEYANCE IS
BEING SOUGHT ARE INDISPENSIBLE PARTIES
WITHOUT WHOM NO RELIEF IS AVAILABLE
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE MAY BE BARRED BY
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS LACHES MAY BAR
RECOVERY
1. Conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom him or one under who he claims,
giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks
relief
2. Delay in asserting the complainants rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice,
or the defendants conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit
3. Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the
right on which he bases his suit
4. Inquiry or prejudice to the defendant in the event the relief is afforded the complainant or the
suit is not held to be barred

ACTION MAY BE BARRED BY RES JUDICATA


1. Final judgment
2. Court has competent jurisdiction
3. Between the first and second causes of actionthere is identity of
parties, subject matter and causes of action

STATE IS NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION PROOF OF OWNERSHIP


AND IDENTITY INDISPENSIBLE

ACTION FOR DAMAGES


> Is available when the remedy of an action for reconveyance may no longer be availed of

> When the land has passed already to the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value

Quieting Title: Basic Principles and Issues


Jessa G. Wong-Cantano

March 06, 2014

The action to quiet title, or remove clouds from title, to real estate, is a well-established remedy
in American law. It has for its purpose the quieting of title or removal of a cloud therefrom when
there is an apparently valid or effective instrument or other claim which in reality is void,
ineffective, voidable or unenforceable.[1]

In the Philippines, Article 476 of the New Civil Code provides the substantive law on the matter,
while Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides for the procedure in bringing an action to quiet
title, or to remove clouds, from title to real property.

Litigants, however, commonly ask: is a quiet title suit the proper and speedy remedy to enforce
ones claim over a property? And, can one, in the same quiet title suit, ask for reconveyance of
title, or, for settlement of a boundary?

A. QUIETING TITLE: ITS ORIGIN AND BASIS.

A quiet title action, or an action to remove cloud on title, is a remedy which originated in the
courts of equity. Such proceedings have for their purpose an adjudication that a claim of title to
or an interest in property, adverse to that of the claimant, is invalid, with the result that the
claimant and those claiming under him may forever be free from danger of the hostile claim.[2]
The basis of equitable relief for removal of a cloud in title is the principle that, because of the
inadequacy of the remedy at law, a deed or other instrument or proceedings constituting the
cloud may not be used injuriously or vexatiously to embarrass or affect the title of a plaintiff in
possession.[3] Stated differently, such remedy was developed by courts of equity, to prevent
multiplicity of actions, and, against repeated or continued trespasses or continuing or recurring
invasion of property rights. Suits to quiet or remove a cloud from title developed from what were
anciently termed bills quia timet or bills of peace, remedies which originated in and
appertained to the jurisdiction of the courts of chancery.[4]

B. THE APPLICABLE PHILIPPINE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENTIAL RULES ON


QUIETING TITLE.

Article 476 and 478 of the New Civil Code provide that, 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, or has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by
extinctive prescription, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

Article 477 of the same Code provides that, the party who may bring an action to quiet title
must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter
of the action.

Thus, for an action to quiet title to prosper, two (2) 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 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.

C. QUIETING TITLE AS AN ACTION TO ENFORCE OWNERSHIP OVER ONES


PROPERTY.

To reiterate, the ground or reason for filing a complaint for quieting of title must be an
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding. Thus, under recent laws and rules, and
pursuant to the maxim expresio mius est exclusio alterius, these grounds are EXCLUSIVE so
that other reasons outside of the purview of these reasons may not be considered valid for the
same action.[5]

At present, the rule is, a quieting title action cannot be availed of for settling boundary
disputes.[6] Thus, in a situation where a party files an action against current possessors of a
property he is claiming, the proper action to be filed is not a quieting title action, but an action
for ejectment. Indeed, there is no instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding the
existence of which clouds the title of the landowner over the accretion or alluvion.[7] The subject
matter in this situation is merely the physical or material possession or possession de facto over
the property.[8]

But, can the landowner seek a declaration of his ownership over the property in the same
ejectment case? The answer, of course, is, he cannot, as, after all, in ejectment cases, the
questions to be resolved simply are these: First, who had actual possession over the piece of real
property? Second, was the possessor ousted therefrom within one year from the filing of the
complaint by force, threat, strategy, or stealth? And lastly, does he ask for the restoration of his
possession? Any controversy over ownership rights should be settled after the party who had the
prior, peaceful and actual possession is returned to the property.[9]
Now, if the situation is, the party wants to file an action against current possessors and/or
registered owners of the property he is claiming, an ejectment case will of course not suffice.
There must be a separate action for him to be able to enforce his legal title over the property.

But then again, is an action for reconveyance the proper remedy, and not a quieting title action?
And, in a situation where the person already filed an action to quiet title, is there a need for him
to subsequently file a separate action for reconveyance of title?

An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by
another, to its rightful and legal owner. Reconveyance is an action distinct from an action for
quieting of title, which is filed 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 for purposes of removing such cloud or to
quiet title.[10]

To be sure, in several cases, the Supreme Court has allowed the treatment or characterization of
an action for reconveyance as an action to quiet title.[11] The question, however, is, in like
manner, can an action to quiet title be treated or characterized as an action for reconveyance, or
even an action to settle boundary disputes, so as to eliminate the need to file another action to
enforce ownership or effect transfer of title over a property?

It is the considered view that, the higher and nobler purpose of avoiding multiplicity of suits and
prevention of litigation must be taken into account in resolving this issue. After all, such purpose
is, in fact, one of the reasons for which equity interferes to remove a cloud on title.[12] Thus, it
was held, equity will interfere in actions to quiet title to prevent multiplicity of suits where
ample and perfect justice can be done, or, as otherwise stated, it will interpose, in a proper case,
to prevent a multiplicity of suits, excessive litigation or circuitry of action.[13]

Verily, multiplicity of suits may be avoided when a court taking cognizance of a quieting title
case will no longer be precluded from adjudicating the issue of transferring the title of the subject
property to its rightful owner, or even settling boundary disputes.

As held under American jurisprudence, if a multiplicity of suits is inherent in a reference of the


parties to their legal remedies, a court of equity may take jurisdiction to determine confused
boundaries.[14]

Indeed, for as long as it can be shown that, there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance
or proceeding which constitutes a cloud on ones title, the ancillary issue of disputed
boundaries, which is necessarily produced as an offshoot of such existence of a cloud, the same
court where the action to quiet title was instituted may likewise settle the issue of boundaries, or
reconvey title to the rightful owner.

Thus, in a scenario where a party, for example, institutes a special civil action for quieting of
title, because of the existence of another certificate of title over his property, which on its face is
valid, but which is in truth and in fact, invalid and prejudicial to his legal or equitable title, he
may seek the declaration of nullity of such title, and in the same case, seek settlement of the
boundary dispute between him and the registered owner, and even the reconveyance of the title
to his name.

You might also like