Calacala vs RP Facts: Spouses Camilo Calacala and Conchita Calacala, predecessors-in-interest of the herein petitioners, are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated at Barangay Balincanaway, Rosales, Pangasinan and covered by ransfer Certificate of itle !o" #$#%& of the Registry of 'eeds of Pangasinan" o secure the provisional release of an accused in a criminal case then pending before the then Court of First (nstance )CF(* of Pangasinan, the spouses offered their aforementioned parcel of land as a property bond in said case" For failure of the accused to appear at his scheduled arraignment on & !ovember $+$, the CF( ordered the bond forfeited in favor of the government, and, following the bondmans failure to produce in court the body of the accused, rendered .udgment against the bond in the amount of P/,0%%"%%" hereafter, hereafter, the court issued a 1rit of 23ecution 4$5 directing the provincial sheriff to effect a levy on the sub.ect parcel of land and to sell the same at a public auction to satisfy the amount of the bond" (n compliance with the writ, the deputy provincial sheriff issued on #6 7uly $+# a Notice of Levy 4#5 4#5 addressed to the Register of 'eeds of Pangasinan who, on $+ 8ugust $+#, caused the annotation thereof on C !o" -#$#%& as 2ntry !o" /$" !ot long thereafter, a public auction of the sub.ect parcel of land was held on #& September $+#, at which respondent Republic submitted its bid for P/,0%%, which is the amount of the .udgment on the bond" 9ence, on that same day, day, a Sheriffs Certificate of Sale4/5 Sale4/5 was was issued in favor of the Republic Republic as the winning bidder" bidder" n 0 ctober $+#, the same Certificate of Sale was registered and annotated on C !o" -#$#%& -#$#%& as 2ntry !o" /;+/, thereby giving the spouses Calacala a period of one )$* year therefrom within which to redeem their property" ue?" (n their complaint, doc@eted as Civil Case No. 12"#-R and raffled to Branch 0/ of the court, petitioners prayed, inter alia$ for alia$ for the cancellation of 2ntries !o" /$ and /;+/ on C !o" -#$#%& or the declaration of said entries as null and void" o the complaint, respondent Republic interposed a %otion to &ismiss405 &ismiss405 grounded on the )$* complaints failure to state a cause of action and )#* prescription of petitioners right to redeem" (ssue: whether the trial courts dismissal of petitioners complaint for Quieting of Title was Title was proper 9eld: uiet title, thus:
8rticle &;;" he plaintiff must have legal or e>uitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the sub.ect-matter of the action" 9e need not be in possession of said property" Aerily, for an action to >uiet title to prosper, two )#* indispensable re>uisites must concur, namely: )$* the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an e>uitable title to or interest in the real property sub.ect of the action and )#* the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its 'rima facieappearance of validity or legal efficacy" uisites are wanting in this case" o start with, petitioners base their claim of legal title not on the strength of any independent writing in their favor but simply and solely on respondent Republics failure to secure the Certificate of Final Sale, e3ecute an 8ffidavit of Consolidation of wnership and obtain a writ of possession over the property in dispute within ten )$%* years from the registration of the Certificate of S ale" Petitioners reliance on the foregoing shortcomings or inactions of respondent Republic cannot stand" For one, it bears stressing that petitioners predecessors-in-interest lost whatever right they had over land in >uestion from the very moment they failed to redeem it during the $-year period of redemption" Certainly, the Republics failure to e3ecute the acts referred to by the petitioners within ten )$%* years from the registration of the Certificate of Sale cannot, in any way, operate to restore whatever rights petitioners predecessors-in-interest had over the same" For sure, petitioners have yet to cite any provision of law or rule of .urisprudence, and we are not aware of any, to the effect that the failure of a buyer in a foreclosure sale to secure a Certificate of Final Sale, e3ecute an 8ffidavit of Consolidation of wnership and obtain a writ of possession over the property thus ac>uired, within ten )$%* years from the registration of the Certificate of Sale will operate to bring ownership bac@ to him whose property has been previously foreclosed and sold" 8s correctly observed by the trial court, the Republics failure to do anything within ten )$%* years or more following the registration of the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale cannot give rise to a presumption that it has thereby waived or abandoned its right of ownership or that it has prescribed, for prescription does not lie against the government, nor could it be bound or estopped by the negligence or mista@es of its officials and employees " =oreover, with the rule that the e3piration of the $-year redemption period forecloses the obligors right to redeem and that the sale thereby becomes absolute, the issuance thereafter of a final deed of sale is at best a mere formality and mere confirmation of the title that is already vested in the purchaser" 1ith the reality that petitioners are not holders of any legal title over the property sub.ect of this case and are bereft of any e>uitable claim thereon, the very first re>uisite of an action to >uiet title, i.e.$ that the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an e>uitable title to or interest in the real property sub.ect matter of the action, is miserably wanting in this case" For another, and worse, petitioners never put in issue, as in fact they admit in their pleadings, the validity of the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale duly registered on 0 ctober $+#" n this score, the second re>uisite of an action to >uiet title, namely, that the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding alleged to cast cloud on a plaintiffs title is in fact invalid or inoperative despite its 'rima facie appearance of validity or l egal efficacy, is li@ewise absent herein"