EFREN TANDOG, FELIX TANDOG, FELIPE TANDOG, JOSEFINO TANDOG, HELEN TANDOG, CATALINA TANDOG, ROMEO TANDOG, DOMINGO TANDOG, CATALINA SANTOS, MARIA BAUTISTA CATANYAG, ARTEMIO CATANY…

Tandog versus Calderon

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Efren Tandog, Felix Tandog, Felipe Tandog, Josefino Tandog, Helen Tandog, Catalina Tandog, Romeo Tandog, Domingo Tandog, Catalina Santos, Maria Bautista Catanyag, Artemio Catanyag and their co-petitioners against spouses Alfonso and Marina Calderon and Renato Macapagal. The petitioners sued to quiet title over a large parcel of land in Antipolo City, claiming that the respondents' assertions of ownership cast a cloud on their own title. The case matters because it teaches the two thresholds every quieting of title suit must clear: there must be a cloud in the sense of Article 476 of the Civil Code, and the plaintiff must first establish his own legal or equitable title under Article 477. It also reminds us that documents merely marked as exhibits but never formally offered prove nothing.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title with the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 73. Before trial, the petitioners and respondent Renato Macapagal entered into a compromise agreement acknowledging his ownership of the portion covered by his certificate of title, and the trial court approved it. After the petitioners rested their case, the spouses Calderon filed a demurrer to evidence. The trial court granted the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

The controversy concerns a parcel of land of 147,991 square meters situated at Sitio Inarawan, Barangay Inuman, San Isidro, Antipolo City. The petitioners claim that they and their predecessors in interest possessed the land openly, continuously, exclusively and notoriously since time immemorial. They trace their rights to Casimiro Policarpio, who was unmarried and died in 1945, survived by nephews and nieces, of whom only Maria Bautista Catanyag remains alive, and by grand nephews and grand nieces, who are the petitioners.

When the petitioners decided to apply for judicial registration of the property, they discovered that portions of it were occupied by the spouses Calderon and by Renato Macapagal. According to the petitioners, the spouses Calderon used falsified documents to justify their possession of 20,116 square meters which they sold to the government, while Macapagal obtained a free patent and, on the strength of it, an original certificate of title over 18,787 square meters. The petitioners then filed their complaint for quieting of title.

Marina Calderon denied the allegations and claimed that she and her husband bought their property in 1958 and had possessed it since then, planting trees and crops and paying realty taxes, and that the petitioners were strangers to her. The petitioners later entered into a compromise agreement with Macapagal recognizing his ownership of the portion covered by his title, and the trial court approved it. After the petitioners presented their evidence, the trial court granted the Calderons' demurrer to evidence and dismissed the complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondents' claims of ownership and adverse possession constitute a cloud upon the petitioners' title within the meaning of Article 476 of the Civil Code.
• Whether or not the petitioners established their legal or equitable title to or interest in the land, as required by Article 477 of the Civil Code.
• Whether or not the documents the petitioners relied upon as the alleged falsified instruments may be considered as evidence, having been merely marked as exhibits but never formally offered.
• Whether or not the petitioners proved that Casimiro Policarpio existed and that he was their predecessor in interest, so that their testimonies may be received as declarations about pedigree.

Applicable Provisions

Article 476 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This is the very cause of action the petitioners invoked, and the Court measures their allegations against its terms.

Article 477 of the Civil Code, which the Court cites as requiring the plaintiff to establish his own title, provides:

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.

This provision supplies the second threshold: the action fails if the plaintiff cannot first show his own title or interest.

Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, on the formal offer of evidence, provides:

Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

This is the rule that excludes the documents the petitioners merely marked as exhibits.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that while a cloud may in some cases arise from a claim of right based on acquisitive prescription or adverse possession, the petitioners' allegation that the respondents' claim of adverse possession was such a cloud was not proved. The Court explained that as a general rule a cloud is not created by mere verbal or parol assertion of ownership, subject to the qualification that there be a written or factual basis for the asserted right.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners failed to establish their legal or equitable title or interest in the land, which Article 477 requires them to do first. Their claim that the respondents relied on falsified documents failed because those documents were merely marked as exhibits and never formally offered in evidence. The Court applied Section 34 of Rule 132:

Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that documents marked as exhibits during the hearing but not formally offered cannot be considered as evidence nor given any evidentiary value.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the petitioners presented no evidence that Casimiro Policarpio existed or that he was their predecessor in interest, so their testimonies could not be considered declarations about pedigree. The requisites under Section 39 of the Revised Rules of Evidence were not established, including that the declarant is dead or unable to testify, that he is related to the subject by birth or marriage, that the relationship is shown by other evidence, and that the declaration was made prior to the controversy.

Doctrine

A suit to quiet title under Article 476 of the Civil Code requires a cloud cast by an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that is apparently valid but in truth invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable. A cloud is not created by mere verbal or parol assertion of ownership, except where there is a written or factual basis for the asserted right, as where the claim rests on acquisitive prescription or adverse possession. The plaintiff must first establish his legal or equitable title to or interest in the property under Article 477. Documents marked as exhibits but never formally offered in evidence have no evidentiary value under Section 34 of Rule 132. Pedigree may be proved by the acts or declarations of relatives only upon compliance with all the requisites of Section 39 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in a suit to quiet title, the plaintiff must first prove his own title and must point to a genuine cloud, for documents merely marked and never formally offered are no evidence at all. Examiners use this case to test Article 476 and Article 477 of the Civil Code together with the formal offer rule under Section 34 of Rule 132.