Art. 476. 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, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

 An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.

 Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.

 Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive prescription.

 Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses that may have redounded to the plaintiff’s benefit.

 Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code.

 Art. 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal of a cloud therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgate. (Civil Code)


What is quieting of title? 

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property. (Oño vs Lim, G.R. No. 154270, March 9, 2010)


What is the purpose of an action to quiet title?

● Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to secure "...an adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be forever afterward free from any danger of hostile claim. (Baricuatro vs CA, G.R. No. 105902, February 9, 2000)

● In such action, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and the other claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and to make the claimant, who has no rights to said immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce the improvements he may desire, as well as use, and even abuse the property as he deems fit. (Oño vs Lim, ibid.)


What is the nature of the action?

Suits to quiet title are characterized as proceedings quasi in rem.  Technically, they are neither in rem nor in personam.  In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant. However, unlike suits in rem, a quasi in rem judgment is conclusive only between the parties. (Portic vs. Cristobal G.R. 156171, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 577)
What are the two kinds of actions referred to in the law?

1. REMEDIAL — an action to remove the cloud or to quiet title
2. PREVENTIVE — an action to prevent a future cloud or doubt
What are the two requisites in order that an action for quieting of title may prosper?

In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, two requisites must concur:
  1. The plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the 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. (Phil-ville Dev't and Housing Corp. vs Bonifacio, et al., G.R. No. 167391, June 8, 2011)

What does the cloud on title consist of?

The cloud on title consists of:
  1. any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding; 
  2. which is apparently valid or effective; 
  3. but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable; and 
  4. may be prejudicial to the title sought to be quieted. (Phil-ville Dev't and Housing Corp. vs Bonifacio, et al., ibid)


 Can this action be filed by a person other than the registered owner? 

Generally, the registered owner of a property is the proper party to bring an action to quiet title. However, it has been held that this remedy may also be availed of by a person other than the registered owner because, in the Article reproduced above, “title” does not necessarily refer to the original or transfer certificate of title. Thus, lack of an actual certificate of title to a property does not necessarily bar an action to quiet title. (Portic vs. Cristobal, ibid.)

 "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 an equitable right or interest in the property may also file an action to quiet title under the law. (Mamadsual vs Moson, G.R. No. 92557 September 27, 1990)

Does an action for quieting of title prescribe?

It depends.

1.  If the plaintiff is in possession of the property, the action does not prescribe.

● Reason: There is settled jurisprudence that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being, that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. No better situation can be conceived at the moment for Us to apply this rule on equity than that of herein petitioners whose mother, Felipa Faja, was in possession of the litigated property for no less than 30 years and was suddenly confronted with a claim that the land she had been occupying and cultivating all these years, was titled in the name of a third person. We hold that in such situation the right to quiet title to the property, to seek its reconveyance and annul any certificate of title covering it, accrued only from the time in possession was made aware of a claim adverse to his own, and it is only then that the statutory period of prescription commences to run against possessor. (Faja vs CA, G.R. No. L-45045, February 28, 1977)

2.  If the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, the action may prescribe.

● The period would be either 10 or 30 years depending on ordinary or extraordinary prescription. It may also be barred by laches.


When will the action to quiet title not prosper?

  1. If it is merely an action to settle a dispute concerning boundaries
  2. If the case merely involves the proper interpretation and meaning of a contract or document
  3. If the plaintiff has not title, legal or equitable
  4. If the action has prescribed and the plaintiff is not in possession of the property
  5. If the contract, instrument, etc. is void on its face
  6. If it is a mere claim or assertion (whether oral or written) unless such claim has been made in a court action or the claim asserts that an instrument or entry in behalf of the plaintiff is not really what it appears to be (Edgardo L. Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Book II, Property)