Text of the provision
Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code.
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
The general principles of law on the quieting of title are adopted, insofar as they do not conflict with the Civil Code — incorporating the equity jurisprudence on the remedy.
Because the quieting-of-title provisions in the Code are relatively few, this article allows courts to draw on the broader body of equitable principles that developed around the remedy, so long as those principles do not conflict with what the Code itself provides. In effect, the codal articles set the outer boundary, and general equity fills in details the Code does not address — for instance, how a cloud on title is defined or what makes an instrument invalid in appearance yet valid on its face. The Code’s own text always controls where the two sources diverge.
Questions about this provision
- Can a Philippine court rely on general legal principles, not just the Civil Code, to decide a quieting of title case?
- What procedure do I follow to file a case to remove a cloud on my property title in the Philippines?
Related provisions
- Article 479 — Return of Benefits.
- Article 481 — Procedure for Quieting of Title.
Cases citing this article
- Municipal Rural Bank of Libmanan, Camarines Sur vs. Virginia Ordoñez, G.R. No. 204663, September 27, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Edesito & Consorcia Ragasa vs. Sps. Gerardo & Rodriga Roa, et al, G.R. No. 141964, June 30, 2006 — 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.