Case Digest: Mananquil vs. Moico, G.R. No. 180076. November 21, 2012.

CASE TITLE: Mananquil vs. Moico
GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 180076. November 21, 2012.*
PONENTE: Del Castillo, J.
CASE WITH THE SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: RTC - Quieting of Title CA - Appeal
FACTS: The National Housing Authority (NHA) expropriated Lots 18 and 19 in Dagat-Dagatan, Navotas. These lots were under the Tondo Dagat-Dagatan Foreshore Development Project, allowing occupants to purchase lots on an installment basis. In February 1980, Lot 19 was sold to Prescilla Mananquil by its occupant. In October 1984, Lot 18 was awarded to Iluminardo and Prescilla Mananquil under a Conditional Contract to Sell. In 1991, Iluminardo and Prescilla died without an issue. However, Prescilla had a child from a previous marriage, Eulogio Francisco Maypa. After the spouses’ death, Iluminardo’s siblings executed an Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs, adjudicating ownership of Lots 18 and 19 to Dianita Mananquil-Rabino. They leased the lots to third parties. In 1997, Eulogio and others executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Roberto Moico. Moico started evicting tenants and demolishing structures on the lots. The Mananquils filed a complaint for quieting of title and injunctive relief. RTC: Ruled in favor of the Mananquils, declaring them rightfully entitled to the properties. CA: Reversed the trial court’s decision, stating that the lots still belonged to the NHA as there was no proof of completed installment payments or awarded titles.
ISSUES: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in addressing an unassigned issue regarding the violation of the Conditional Contract to Sell. Whether the Court of Appeals misinterpreted the provisions of Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code against the petitioners. NO
ARGUMENTS/LEGAL BASES
PETITIONER	RESPONDENTS
The CA cannot touch upon matters not raised as issues in the trial court, stressing that the NHA did not even intervene during the proceedings below to ventilate issues relating to the rights of the parties to Lots 18 and 19 under the Tondo Dagat-Dagatan Foreshore Development Project.  Petitioners claim that since the issue of violation of the terms of the grant may be resolved in a separate forum between the Mananquils and the NHA, it was improper for the CA to have pre-empted the issue. On quieting of title, petitioners advance the view 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.	Moico argues that because the issue relating to Iluminardo and Prescilla’s possible violation of the terms and conditions of the NHA grant is closely related to the issue of ownership and possession over Lots 18 and 19, then the CA possessed jurisdiction to pass upon it. Moico supports the CA view that petitioners failed to prove their title or interest in the subject properties, just as he has proved below that it was his predecessor, Eulogio, who paid all obligations relative to Lots 18 and 19 due and owing to the NHA, for which reason the NHA released and cleared the lots and thus paved the way for their proper transfer to him.
PREVAILING PARTY:  Moico
DECISION/DOCTRINE: In order that an action for quieting of title may proper, it is essential that the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the property which is the subject-matter of the action. Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means beneficial ownership. In the absence of such legal or equitable title, or interest, there is no cloud to be prevented or removed. 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:  the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and  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. Contrary to petitioners’ stand, the issue relating to the grant of rights, title or award by the NHA determines whether the case for quieting of title may be maintained. If the petitioners are legitimate successors to or beneficiaries of Iluminardo upon his death – under the certificate of title, award, or grant, or under the special law or specific terms of the NHA program/project – then they possess the requisite interest to maintain suit; if not, then Civil Case No. 2741-MN must necessarily be dismissed. 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 Iluminardo’s rights after his death. They did not call to the witness stand competent witnesses from the NHA who can attest to their rights as successors to or beneficiaries of Lots 18 and 19. They failed to present proof, at the very least, of the specific law, provisions, or terms that govern the Tondo Dagat-Dagatan Foreshore Development Project which would indicate a modicum of interest on their part. For this reason, their rights or interest in the property could not be established. It was erroneous, however, for the CA to assume that Iluminardo and Prescilla may have violated the conditions of the NHA grant under the Tondo Dagat-Dagatan Foreshore Development Project by transferring their rights prior to the issuance of a title or certificate awarding Lots 18 and 19 to them. In the absence of proof, a ruling to this effect is speculative. Instead, in resolving the case, the trial court – and the CA on appeal – should have required proof that petitioners had, either:  a certificate of title, award, or grant from the proper agency (NHA or otherwise) in the name of their predecessor Iluminardo, or, in the absence thereof,  a right to succeed to Iluminardo’s rights to Lots 18 and 19, not only as his heirs, but also as qualified legitimate successors/beneficiaries under the Tondo Dagat-Dagatan Foreshore Development Project terms and conditions as taken over by the NHA. 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. As earlier stated, this takes the form of evidence apart from proof of heirship, of course – of the specific law, regulation or terms covering the program/project which allows for a substitution or succession of rights in case of death; the certificate of title, award or grant itself; or the testimony of competent witnesses from the NHA. Proof of heirship alone does not suffice; the Mananquils must prove to the satisfaction of the courts that they have a right to succeed Iluminardo under the law or terms of the NHA project, and are not disqualified by non-payment, prohibition, lack of qualifications, or otherwise. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The March 13, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 81229 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.