Ocampo v Ocampo

FACTS:

Petitioner Jose S. Ocampo and respondent Ricardo S. Ocampo are full-blooded

brothers being sons of the late Basilio Ocampo and Juliana Sunglao.

Jose Ocampo applied for a Transfer of Certificate Title. When Ricardo Ocampo learned
about this he filed a complaint against petitioner for partition and annulment of Transfer
Certificate of Title. Ricardo alleges that the property is a conjugal property left to them
by their parents and therefore, they are co-owners of the said property.

On the other hand, Jose contends that the property was donated to him and his wife by
his parents and Ricardo even signed an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Waiver (ESW)
that effectively transferred the said property to him. Ricardo rebuts this contention by
alleging that his signature on the ESW was falsified by Jose and to support this, he
presented the report of the NBI which confirmed that the signature was indeed forged.

Jose further contends that even if the ESW is null and void, Ricardo is already barred by
prescription and laches.

ISSUE:

Is the action of Ricardo barred by prescription?

RULING:

No, the action is not barred by prescription.

The Court, in a catena of cases, has permitted the filing of an action for reconveyance
despite the lapse of more than ten (10) years from the issuance of title. The common
denominator of these cases is that the plaintiffs therein were in actual possession of the
disputed land, converting the action from reconveyance of property into one for quieting
of title. lmprescriptibility is accorded to cases for quieting of title since the plaintiff has
the right to wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating
an action to vindicate his right.

In the case before us, the certificate of title over the subject property was issued on
November 24, 1970. Yet, the complaint for partition and annulment of the title was only
filed on July 1, 1992, more than twenty (20) years since the assailed title was issued.
Respondent's complaint before the RTC would have been barred by prescription.
However, based on respondent's submission before the trial court, both petitioner and
respondent were residing at the subject property at the time the complaint was filed.
Considering that respondent was in actual possession of the disputed land at the time of
the filing of the complaint, the present case may be treated as an action for quieting of
title.

In our jurisdiction, the remedy is governed by Article 476 and 477 of the Civil Code,
which state:

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.

From the foregoing provisions, we reiterate the rule that 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.

Since it was already established that respondent's signature on the ESW, which was the
basis of petitioner's title over the property, was forged, then it is only necessary for the
cloud on respondent's title to be removed.