Text of the provision
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.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
When a cloud exists on title to real property — an instrument, record, or claim that appears valid but is actually invalid and may prejudice the title — an action may be brought to remove the cloud or quiet the title, or to prevent a cloud from being cast. It settles competing claims and secures the owner's peace of title.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 475 — Sentimental Value.
- Article 477 — Who May Sue to Quiet Title.
Cases citing this article
- Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 108451, April 11, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Pen Development Corporation and Las Brisas Resort Corporation vs. Martinez Leyba, Inc, G.R. No. 211845, August 9, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Delfin and Maria Tappa vs. Heirs of Jose Bacud, et al, G.R. No. 187633, April 14, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Eland Philippines, Inc. vs. Azucena Garcia, et al, G.R. No. 173289, February 17, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Efren Tandog, et al. vs. Renato Macapagal, et al, G.R. No. 144208, September 11, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.