Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 332 Tappa v. Bacud (Mozo)

    Uploaded by

    JUAN MIGUEL MOZO
    13 views2 pages
    Spouses Tappa filed a complaint to quiet title over a parcel of land against respondents Bacud, Calabazaron, and Malupeng. Spouses Tappa claimed ownership based on an OCT, while the respondents claimed interests through inheritance and acquisitive prescription. The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Tappa, but the CA reversed. The SC then ruled that the action to quiet title should not prosper because Spouses Tappa failed to prove they had a valid legal or equitable title to the property and that the claims of the respondents were invalid.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Spouses Tappa filed a complaint to quiet title over a parcel of land against respondents Bacud, Calabazaron, and Malupeng. Spouses Tappa claimed ownership based on an OCT, while the respondents claimed interests through inheritance and acquisitive prescription. The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Tappa, but the CA reversed. The SC then ruled that the action to quiet title should not prosper because Spouses Tappa failed to prove they had a valid legal or equitable title to the property and that the claims of the respondents were invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views2 pages

    332 Tappa v. Bacud (Mozo)

    Uploaded by

    JUAN MIGUEL MOZO
    Spouses Tappa filed a complaint to quiet title over a parcel of land against respondents Bacud, Calabazaron, and Malupeng. Spouses Tappa claimed ownership based on an OCT, while the respondents claimed interests through inheritance and acquisitive prescription. The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Tappa, but the CA reversed. The SC then ruled that the action to quiet title should not prosper because Spouses Tappa failed to prove they had a valid legal or equitable title to the property and that the claims of the respondents were invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Tappa v.

    Bacud
    G.R. No. 187633 – Apr. 4, 2016
    Third Division | J. Jardeleza

    Digest Author: Mozo, Miguel

    Topic: Special Civil Actions


       
    Case Summary:

    Par. 1 – Facts

    Spouses Tappa filed a complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession and Damages (Complaint)
    against respondents Jose Bacud (Bacud), Henry Calabazaron (Calabazaron), and Vicente Malupeng (Malupeng
    over a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 3341, Pls-793 with an area of 21,879 square meters. Spouses Tappa
    alleged that they are the registered owners of Lot No. 3341 supported by OCT No. P-69103 (OCT No. P-
    69103). Delfin allegedly inherited Lot No. 3341 from his father, Lorenzo Tappa (Lorenzo). Spouses Tappa
    claimed that both Delfin and Lorenzo were in open, continuous, notorious, exclusive possession of the lot since
    time immemorial. Respondents Bacud, Calabazaron and Malupeng claimed that the original owner of Lot No.
    3341 was Genaro Tappa (Genaro) who had two children, Lorenzo and Irene. Upon Genaro's death, the property
    passed on to Lorenzo and Irene by operation of law; and they became ipso facto co-owners of the property. As
    co-owners, Lorenzo and Irene each owned 10,939 square meters of the lot as their respective shares. Lorenzo
    had children namely, Delfin, Primitiva, and Fermina. Upon the death of Irene, her share in tum passed to her
    heirs, Demetria, Juanita, Pantaleon and Jose Bacud.

    Calabazaron and Malupeng claimed that they became owners of their respective portions of land thru deed of
    sale, paid real property taxes and remain in the possession up to this date. They continued to occupy them
    despite several demands to vacate from Spouses Tappa. Bacud claimed ownership over 1,690 square meters of
    Lot No. 3341 in his own right as heir of Irene.

    Par. 2 - Case Trail - MTC/RTC/CA + arguments

    The RTC Ruled that Delfin and Maria's title is clear and unequivocal, and its validity has never been assailed by
    the defendants – nor has any evidence been adduced that successfully overcomes the presumption of validity
    and legality that the title of Delfin and Maria enjoys and that the 1963 affidavit contains nothing more than the
    allegations of the affiants and does not, by itself, constitute proof of ownership of land, especially as against
    documents such as titles.

    Respondents appealed to the CA alleging that they now owned the land thru acquisitive prescription and that the
    Title was fraudulently acquired the title by concealing material facts thus the case should also be dismissed. The
    CA ruled in favor of the respondents.

    Par. 3 - Relevant Issue + SC Held

    The issue is WoN the action to quiet the title will prosper and the SC ruled in the negative.

    The action for quieting of title should not prosper. For an action to quiet title to prosper, two 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. Spouses Tappa failed to meet these two requisites.
    Doctrines/Laws Involved: 

     For an action to quiet title to prosper, two 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.

    You might also like