MANANQUIL VS MOICO

FACTS: Lots 18 and 19 in Dagat-Dagatan, Navotas form part of the land previously
expropriated by the National Housing Authority (NHA). Lots 18 and 19 were
awarded to spouses Iluminardo and Prescilla Mananquil under a Conditional
Contract to Sell. After the death of the spouses in 1991, it turned out that Prescilla
had a child by a previous marriagenamely Eulogio Francisco Maypa (Eulogio).
Iluminardos supposed heirs (Mananquil heirs) his brothers and sisters and herein
petitioners Dionisio and Estanislao Mananquil (Estanislao), Laudencia Mananquil-
Villamor (Laudencia), and Dianita Mananquil-Rabino (Dianita) executed an
Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs and adjudicated ownership over Lots 18 and
19 in favor of Dianita. They took possession of Lots 18 and 19 and leased them out
to third parties. Sometime later, the Mananquil heirs discovered that in 1997,
Eulogio and two others, on the claim that they are surviving heirs of Iluminardo and
Prescilla, had executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights
and Sale, and a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Roberto Moico (Moico). Moico
began evicting the Mananquils tenants. Thus, the Mananquils filed a case for
quieting of title. The RTC ruled in favor of the Mananquils. On appeal, the CA
reversed the RTC. The Mananquils argue that since they are the legal heirs of
Iluminardo Mananquil, then they possess the requisite legal or equitable title or
interest in Lots 18 and 19, which thus permits them to file an action to quiet title;
and whatever rights Iluminardo had over the lots were transmitted to them from the
moment of his death, per Article 777 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the action to quiet title should prosper?
HELD: The petition lacks merit. An action for quieting of title is essentially a
common law remedy grounded on equity. The competent court is tasked to
determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, 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. But 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. From the evidence
adduced below, it appears that the petitioners have failed to show their
qualifications or right to succeed Iluminardo in his rights under the NHA
program/project. They failed to present any title, award, grant, document or
certification from the NHA or proper government agency which would show that
Iluminardo and Prescilla have become the registered owners/beneficiaries/
awardees of Lots 18 and 19, or that petitioners are qualified successors or
beneficiaries under the Dagat-Dagatan program/project, taking over Iluminardos
rights after his death. Petitioners should have shown, to the satisfaction of the
courts that under the NHA program project governing the grant of Lots 18 and 19,
they are entitled and qualified to succeed or substitute for Iluminardo in his rights
upon his death.