GR 136021; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136021 February 22, 2000
BENIGNA SECUYA, et al., petitioners, vs. GERARDA M. VDA. DE SELMA, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, the heirs of Dalmacio Secuya, filed an action for quieting of title against respondent Gerarda Selma over a 3,000-square meter portion of Lot 5679. They claimed ownership based on a 1953 sale by Paciencia Sabellona to Dalmacio Secuya, evidenced by a lost private document and a 1976 Confirmation of Sale executed by Sabellona’s heir. They alleged possession since 1953. Respondent, on the other hand, is the registered owner of a larger portion of Lot 5679, evidenced by TCT No. T-35678, having purchased it from Cesaria Caballero in 1975. Caballero derived her title from Silvestre Aro, the registered owner of the mother lot. Respondent asserted that petitioners were merely tenants on the land. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint and ordered petitioners to vacate, pay damages, and surrender possession to respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners have a valid cause of action for quieting of title against the respondent.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. For an action for quieting of title to prosper under Article 477 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff must allege and prove not only the existence of a cloud or adverse claim on the title but, more fundamentally, that they have a valid legal or equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action. In this case, petitioners failed to establish the requisite title. Their claim rested on an alleged 1953 sale supported only by a lost private document and a subsequent confirmation deed, which are insufficient to overcome respondent’s Torrens title. Respondent, as a registered owner, possessed a certificate of title free from any lien or encumbrance noting petitioners’ claim. The Court emphasized that a Torrens title is generally indefeasible and imprescriptible. Petitioners’ unregistered claim, which was not annotated on the title, could not prevail over respondent’s registered ownership acquired in good faith. Since petitioners did not demonstrate a valid title, their action for quieting of title necessarily failed. The Court also found no merit in the claim that respondent was a purchaser in bad faith, noting the absence of any annotation on the title that would have charged her with notice of petitioners’ adverse claim.