LUCASAN V. PDIC (CIVIL, REDEMPTION, PROPERTY)

To avail of the remedy of QUIETING OF TITLE, 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 action; and


2. the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown in fact invalid or inoperative despite it prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

Stated simply, the plaintiff must show that he has a legal title or at least an equitable title over the real property in dispute, and that some deed or proceeding beclouds its validity or efficacy.

Unfortunately, the foregoing requisites are wanting in this case. Lucasan admitted that he failed to redeem the property during the redemption period, on account of his ten limited financial situation. It was only 15 years later that he manifested his desire to reacquire the properties. Clearly thus, he had lost whatever right ha had over the lots.

The payment of loans made by Lucasan cannot in any way operate to restore whatever right he had over the subject properties. Such payment only extinguished his loan obligations to the mortgagee banks and the liens which Lucasan claimed were subsisting at the time of the registration of the notice of embargo and certification of sale.

Neither can Lucasan capitalize on PBC's failure to file a petition for consolidation of ownership after the expiration of the redemption period. with the rule that the expiration of the 1-year redemption period forecloses the obligor's right to redeem ans 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.

Certainly, Lucasan no longer possess any legal or equitable title to or interest over the subject parcels of land; hence, he cannot validly maintain an action for quieting of title.