GAPACAN V. OMIPET, 387 SCRA 383
Issues of property rights can be determined in an action to quiet title.
FACTS:
Paicat Gapacan is the primitive possessor of an unregistered land in Mt. Province, divided into 3 parcels of riceland and another planted to camote and declared by him for taxation purposes. He had two children Maria and Antonio. Antonio left for a long while to try his luck in the mines Benguet. Maria remained, took care of their father and eventually took over the cultivation of the land.
Antonio Gapacan returned to and executed an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property showing that the property had been transferred to him by his sister Maria Gapacan-Omipet (Omipet) making him in effect the legal owner of the property in question. Since then, Antonio Gapacan’s family (Gapacans) had been occupying and cultivating the property.
Sometime in 1992, Omipet hired laborers to clear and cultivate portions of the disputed property. Gapacans prohibited them Gapacans and ordered the defendants to vacate the land and restore possession to plaintiffs.
Omipet then filed an action to quiet title in RTC and that she be declared the lawful owner. RTC adjudged that Gapacans have right of possession over the land. On appeal CA, declared that the land is common property of both Omipet and Gapacans and ordered its partition.
Both parties appealed. Gapacans alleged that CA cannot declare that the land is common property since it deviates from the cause of action in the trial court. Omipet’s appeal is mostly factual.
ISSUE: Whether or not property rights can be decided in an action to quiet title?
HELD: Yes.
Art. 476 of the Civil Code provides that an action to quiet title may be brought when there exists a cloud on the title to a real property or any interest therein. In the case of Bautista v. Exconde, we held that the property owner whose property rights were being disturbed may ask a competent court for a proper determination of the respective rights of the party-claimants, not only to place things in their proper place, that is, to require the one who has no right to refrain from acts injurious to the peaceful enjoyment of the property not only of the rightful owner but also for the benefit of both with the view of dissipating any cloud of doubt over the property. It goes without saying therefore that the appellate court in resolving the present controversy is well within its authority to adjudicate on the respective rights of the parties, that is, to pass upon the ownership of the property; hence to declare the same as common property.
As to Omipet’s appeal, SC merely affirmed the findings of the trial court that she did not present sufficient evidence to overcome Gapacan’s better right to possession. SC ultimately ruled that CA was correct in its determination that the land in dispute is common property and should be partitioned.
