Quieting Title: Basic Principles and Issues Jessa G. Wong-Cantano Wong-Cantano March 06, 2014
The action to t o 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 eective instrument or other claim which in reality is void, ineective, voidable or unenforceable.[! In the "hilippines, Article #$% of the &ew 'ivil 'ode provides the substantive law on the matter, while (ule %) of the (ules of 'ourt provides for the procedure in bringing an action to quiet title, or to remove clouds, from title to real property. property. *itigants, however, commonly as+ is a quiet title suit the proper and speedy remedy to enforce ones claim over a property And, can one, in the same quiet title suit, as+ for reconveyance of title, or, for settlement of a boundary A. QUIETING TITLE: ITS ORIGIN AND BASIS.
A quiet title action, or an action to remove cloud on title, is a remedy which originated in the courts of equity. /uch proceedings have for their purpose an ad0udication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the claimant, is invalid, with the result that the claimant and those claiming under him may forever be free from danger of the hostile claim.[1! The basis of equitable equita ble relief for removal of a cloud in title is the principle that, because of the inadequacy of the remedy at law, a deed or other instrument or proceedings constituting the cloud may not be used in0uriously or ve2atiously to embarrass or aect the title of a plainti in possession.[)! /tated dierently, such remedy was developed by courts of equity, to prevent multiplicity of actions, and, against repeated or continued tresp trespasse asses s or contin continuing uing or recur recurrin ring g invasio invasion n of proper property ty rights. rights. /uits to quiet quiet or remove a cloud from title developed from what were anciently termed “bills quia timet” or or 3bills of peace4, remedies which originated in and appertained to the 0urisdiction of the courts of chancery.[#! B. TE APPLI APPLI!AB !ABLE LE PILIP PILIPPIN PINE E LA"S LA"S AND AND #URIS #URISPRU PRUDEN DENTIA TIAL L RULES RULES ON QUIETI QUIETING NG TITLE.
Article #$% and #$5 of the &ew 'ivil 'ode provide that, 3whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance encumbrance or proceeding proceeding which is apparently apparently valid or eective eective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineective, ineective, voidable, voidable, or unenforceable unenforceable,4 ,4 or 3has been e2tinguishe e2tinguished d or has
terminated, or has been barred by e2tinctive prescription4, 3and may be pre0udicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.4 Article #$$ of the same 'ode provides that, the party who may bring an action to quiet title 3must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the sub0ect matter of the action.4 Thus, for an action to quiet title to prosper, two 617 indispensable requisites must concur, namely 67 the plainti or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property sub0ect of action, and 617 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 e8cacy. !. QUIETING TITLE AS AN A!TION TO EN$OR!E O "NERSIP O%ER ONE&S PROPERT'.
To reiterate, the ground or reason for 9ling a complaint for quieting of title must be 3an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding.4 Thus, under recent laws and rules, and pursuant to the ma2im expresio mius est exclusio alterius , these grounds are :;'*! At present, the rule is, a quieting title action cannot be availed of for settling boundary disputes.[%! Thus, in a situation where a party 9les an action against current possessors of a property he is claiming, the proper action to be 9led is not a quieting title action, but an action for e0ectment. Indeed, there is no instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding the e2istence of which clouds the title of the landowner over the accretion or alluvion.[$! The sub0ect matter in this situation is merely the physical or material possession or possession de facto over the property.[5! ?ut, can the landowner see+ a declaration of his ownership over the property in the same e0ectment case The answer, of course, is, he cannot, as, after all, in e0ectment 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 as 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.[@! &ow, if the situation is, the party wants to 9le an action against current possessors andor registered owners of the property he is claiming, an e0ectment case will of course not su8ce. There must be a separate action for him to be able to enforce his legal title over the property.
?ut then again, is an action for reconveyance the proper remedy, and not a quieting title action And, in a situation where the person already 9led an action to quiet title, is there a need for him to subsequently 9le a separate action for reconveyance of title An action for reconveyance is one that see+s to transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner. (econveyance is an action distinct from an action for quieting of title, which is 9led 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 eective but is in truth and in fact, invalid, ineective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be pre0udicial to said title for purposes of removing such cloud or to quiet title.[B! To be sure, in several cases, the /upreme 'ourt has allowed the treatment or characteriCation of an action for reconveyance as an action to quiet title.[! The question, however, is, in li+e manner, can an action to quiet title be treated or characteriCed as an action for reconveyance, or even an action to settle boundary disputes, so as to eliminate the need to 9le another action to enforce ownership or eect 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 ta+en 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.[1! Thus, it was held, 3equity will interfere in actions to quiet title to prevent multiplicity of suits where ample and perfect 0ustice can be done, or, as otherwise stated, it will interpose, in a proper case, to prevent a multiplicity of suits, e2cessive litigation or circuitry of action.4[)! =erily, multiplicity of suits may be avoided when a court ta+ing cogniCance of a quieting title case will no longer be precluded from ad0udicating the issue of transferring the title of the sub0ect property to its rightful owner, or even settling boundary disputes. As held under American 0urisprudence, 3if a multiplicity of suits is inherent in a reference of the parties to their legal remedies, a court of equity may ta+e 0urisdiction to determine confused boundaries.4[#! Indeed, for as long as it can be shown that, there is an 3instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding4 which constitutes a cloud on ones title, the ancillary issue of disputed boundaries, which is necessarily produced as an oshoot of such e2istence of a cloud, the same court where the action to quiet title was instituted may li+ewise settle the issue of boundaries, or reconvey title to the rightful owner.
Thus, in a scenario where a party, for e2ample, institutes a special civil action for quieting of title, because of the e2istence of another certi9cate of title over his property, which on its face is valid, but which is in truth and in fact, invalid and pre0udicial to his legal or equitable title, he may see+ the declaration of nullity of such title, and in the same case, see+ settlement of the boundary dispute between him and the registered owner, and even the reconveyance of the title to his name.
