Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eland Philippines v. Garcia Et Al
Eland Philippines v. Garcia Et Al
GARCIA (RRSZ) After the resolution of the CA denying the certiorari, the RTC t ruled that the
G.R. No. 173289; February 17, 2010 reception of evidence already presented by the respondents before the
Petitioners: Eland Philippines, Inc. Clerk of Court remained as part of the records of the case, and that the
Respondents: Azucena Garcia, Elino Fajardo, and heir of TIburcio Malabanan named petitioner had the right to cross-examine the witness and to comment on
Teresa Malabanan the documentary exhibits already presented.
8. Respondents filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, while petitioners filed
Doctrine/s: its opposition. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents.
1. For an action to quiet title to prosper, two (2) indispensable requisites must 9. Court of Appeals Ruling: Appeal was dismissed for lack of merit
concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable
title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, Issues:
claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title 1. Is Summary Judgment a proper procedure for a case of Quieting of
must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima Title? – YES
facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. 2. Was there a valid Summary Judgement on the Quieting of Title? –NO.
Facts: Held:
1. Respondents filed a complaint in the RTC Tagaytay for Quieting of Title with Issue 1
Preliminary Injunction against Eland Philippines claiming that they are 1. This Court has already ruled that any action can be the subject of a summary
owners of a parcel of land in Tagaytay by occupation and possession judgment with the sole exception of actions for annulment of marriage or
pursuant to the Public Land Law. declaration of its nullity or for legal separation.
2. They claimed that they have been in continuous, public, and adverse
possession for more than thirty years. They found out that there has been a Issue 2
subject to a registration proceeding that had also been decided by the same 1. A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any
RTC. material fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Events in the RTC: A summary judgment is proper if, while the pleadings on their face appear
3. Summons were given to the petitioners, where they filed a Motion to to raise issues, the affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the
Dismiss, after two extensions. Their argument: No cause of action; not moving party show that such issues are not genuine. In their motion for
entitled to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. summary judgment, the respondents failed to clearly demonstrate the
4. RTC denied the MTD claiming that there was a cause of action, and thus absence of any genuine issue of fact. They merely reiterated their averments
instructed the petitioners to file an Answer. The petitioners, however filed in the complaint for quieting of title and opposed some issues raised by the
an MR over the issued Order dismissing the MTD, as well as a Motion for petitioner in its Answer Ad Cautelam
Extension for the filing of the Answer. Meanwhile, respondents filed a 2. In ruling that there was indeed no genuine issue involved, the trial court
Motion to Declare Defendant Eland in Default. After a Comment, and a Reply merely stated that:
of Comment to aforesaid mention, the RTC declared petitioners in default. “This Court, going by the records, observed keenly that plaintiffs’ cause
5. Earlier, petitioner filed its Answer Ad Cautelam (With Compulsory of action for quieting of title on the disputed parcel of land is based on
Counterclaim). Respondents countered by filing a Motion to Expunge the alleged fraud in the substitution of their landholdings of Lot 9250,
Cad 355, Tagaytay Cadastre x x x While defendant Eland in its answer
Eland's Answer from the Records. Consequently, respondents filed a Motion
practically and mainly interposed the defenses of: (a) the parcel of land
to Set Presentation of Evidence Ex Parte, which was granted.
being claimed by the plaintiffs is not the parcel of land subject matter of
6. Respondents filed a Motion for Clarification as to whether or not the Land Registration Case No. TG-423; (b) the claim of the plaintiffs is
evidence presented ex parte was nullified by the admission of petitioner's barred by prior judgment of this Court in said Land Registration Case;
Answer Ad Cautelam. Petitioner filed its Comment on the said motion for and (c) plaintiffs' complaint is barred by the Statute of Limitation since
clarification. Original Certificate of Title No. 0-660 has become incontrovertible.
7. A pre-trial conference was set, where both parties sent their pre-trial briefs. Cross-reference of the above-cited Land Registration Case No. TG-423
But petitioners filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings on the ground that that was decided previously by this Court with the case at bench was
they filed a certiorari with the CA regarding the Order denying the MTD. imperatively made by this Court. Being minded that the Court has and
can take judicial notice of the said land registration case, this Court 6. Respondents, in their Complaint, claim that they have become the owners
observed that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried on the merits in fee-simple title of the subject land by occupation and possession under
x x x” the provisions of Sec. 48 (b) of the Public Land Law or Commonwealth Act
3. Notwithstanding, the issue of possession is a question of fact by the No. 141, as amended. Thus, it appears that the first requisite has been
interaction of the basic pleadings, the observation of this Court is that the satisfied. Anent the second requisite, respondents enumerated several facts
plaintiffs were able to prove by the well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the that would tend to prove the invalidity of the claim of the petitioner. All of
aspects of possession in accordance with Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth these claims, which would correspond to the two requisites for the quieting
Act 141, as amended. Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Court, except as of title, are factual; and, as discussed earlier, the petitioner interposed its
to the amount of damages, when there is no genuine issue as to any material objections and duly disputed the said claims, thus, presenting genuine issues
fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, that can only be resolved through a full-blown trial.
summary judgment may be allowed. The term "genuine issue" has been
defined as an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as 7. Where the petition for review of a decree of registration is filed within the
distinguished from an issue which is sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad one-year period from entry of the decree, it is error for the court to deny
faith and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for the petition without hearing the evidence in support of the allegation of
trial. Thus, under the aforecited rule, summary judgment is appropriate actual and extrinsic fraud upon which the petition is predicated. The
when there are no genuine issues of fact, which call for the presentation of petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to prove such allegation. In the
evidence in a full-blown trial. Thus, even if on their face the pleadings appear present case, the one-year period before the Torrens title becomes
to raise issues, but when the affidavits, depositions and admissions show indefeasible and incontrovertible has not yet expired; thus, a review of the
that such issues are not genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed by decree of registration would have been the appropriate remedy.
the rules must ensue as a matter of law.
4. Regarding the nature of the action filed before the trial court, quieting of Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari of petitioner
title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or Eland Philippines, Inc. is hereby GRANTED, and the decision dated February 28, 2006
uncertainty with respect to title to real property. Originating in equity of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 67417, which dismissed the appeal of
jurisprudence, its purpose is to secure ‘x x x an adjudication that a claim of petitioner Eland Philippines, Inc. and affirmed the resolutions dated November 3,
title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the complainant, is 1999 and June 28, 2006 of Branch 18, RTC of Tagaytay City, is
invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, the resolutions dated November 3,
forever afterward free from any danger of hostile claim.’ In an action for 1999 and June 28, 2006 of Branch 18, RTC of Tagaytay City in Civil Case No. TG-1784
quieting of title, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective are hereby declared NULL and VOID.
rights of the complainant and other claimants, ‘x x x not only to place things
in their proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable
respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that
he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property
dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the
improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he
deems best
5. Verily, 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 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.