You are on page 1of 14

Case Digests Compilation

D. Remedies available to aggrieved parties in
registration cases:
21. Republic v Mangatora
Two parcels of land was applied for registration by the late Dona Demetria Cacho.
One has an area of 3,365 sm while the other has an area of 3!."! sm. The
#ep$blic thro$gh the O%& so$ght to cancel the title and re'erse its passion bac( to
the #ep$blic contending that some portions of the said property were mista(enly
incl$ded in the resgitration.
The )eirs contend #es *$dicata stating that the co$rts ha'e already prono$nced
ownership o'er the said property and it is no longer incontro'ertible.
,hether or not the acton for re'ersion is already prescribed and barred by #es
#e'ersion is an action where the $ltimate relief so$ght is to re'ert the land bac( to
the go'ernment $nder the #egalian doctrine. Considering that the land s$b-ect of
the action originated from a grant by the go'ernment, its cancellation is a matter
between the grantor and the grantee. see(s to restore p$blic land fra$d$lently
awarded and disposed of to pri'ate indi'id$als or corporations to the mass of p$blic
domain. +t bears to point o$t, tho$gh, that the Co$rt also allowed the resort by the
&o'ernment to actions for re'ersion to cancel titles that were 'oid for reasons other
than fra$d, i.e., 'iolation by the grantee of a patent of the conditions imposed by
law. and lac( of -$risdiction of the Director of /ands to grant a patent co'ering
inalienable forest land or portion of a ri'er, e'en when s$ch grant was made
thro$gh mere o'ersight. +n #ep$blic '. &$errero, the Co$rt ga'e a more general
statement that the remedy of re'ersion can be a'ailed of 0only in cases of
fra$d$lent or $nlawf$l incl$sion of the land in patents or certi1cates of title.2
,hile the #ep$blic does not disp$te that that two parcels of land were awarded to
Do3a Demetria in the 4546 Cacho case, it alleges that these were not the same as
those co'ered by OCT 7os. 894:88 ;a.f.< and 894:84 ;a.f.< iss$ed in Do3a Demetria=s
name "6 years later. +f, indeed, the parcels of land co'ered by said OCTs were not
those granted to Do3a Demetria in the 4546 Cacho case, then it can be pres$med,
$nder the #egalian doctrine, that said properties still form part of the p$blic domain
belonging to the %tate.
F$rthermore *$st beca$se OCTs were already iss$ed in Do3a Demetria=s name does
not bar the #ep$blic from instit$ting an action for re'ersion. +ndeed, the Co$rt
made it clear in Francisco '. #odrig$e> that %ection 484 of the ?$blic /and @ct 0may
be in'o(ed only when title has already 'ested in the indi'id$al, e.g., when a patent
or a certi1cate of title has already been iss$edA,B2 for the basic premise in an action
for re'ersion is that the certi1cate of title fra$d$lently or $nlawf$lly incl$ded land of
the p$blic domain, hence, calling for the cancellation of said certi1cate. +t is
act$ally the iss$ance of s$ch a certi1cate of title which constit$tes the third element
of a ca$se of action for re'ersion.
22. Castillo v Madrigal
%po$ses Castillo together with their brother Cd$ardo Castillo are registered co9
owners of a parcel of land located in Crmita Danila. +n 4564, the %po$ses went to
Cagayan ?ro'ince to lea'e there lea'ing the management of the said property to
Cd$ardo. Epon ret$rn in 45!! they decided to get their share from their brother b$t
was s$rprised to learn that the property has already been transferred to Ficenter
Dadrigal and f$rther to %$sana #ealty +nc.
They tried to peaceably settle the matter b$t %$sana did not heed to their re$est.
Th$s, they 1led a case for ann$lment of contract and transfer certi1cate of title
andGor reco'eyance with damages.
,hether or not the action has already prescribedH ,hether or not they ha'e a
ca$se of action.
The %$preme Co$rt held that the C@ and #TC was incorrect. +t is e'ident in the
complaint that petitioners so$ght the declaration of the ineIistence of the deed of
sale beca$se of the absence of their consent. Th$s, following the pro'ision of @rticle
4648 of the Ci'il Code, this (ind of action is imprescriptible. The action for
recon'eyance is li(ewise imprescriptible beca$se its basis is the alleged 'oid
contract of sale.
)owe'er, there sho$ld be no debate that the action for damages against pri'ate
respondents has already prescribed. +n accordance with @rticle 4466 of the Ci'il
it sho$ld ha'e been bro$ght within ten ;48< years from the date of the sale
to Ficente Dadrigal and the iss$ance of Transfer Certi1cate of Title 7o. !:866 in his
name on *$ly 4:, 4563, if against the heirs of Ficente Dadrigal. or within ten ;48<
years from the date of the iss$ance of Transfer Certi1cate of Title 7o. 36:"8 in the
name of %$sana #ealty, +nc. on Day 4:, 4556, if against the 1rm.
F$rthermore, the statement of the co$rt a $o that they failed to state of a ca$se of
action is correct. The %$preme co$rt held that only as long as the property is still in
the name of the person who ca$sed the wrongf$l registration and has not passed to
an innocent third person for 'al$e will an action lie to compel that person to
recon'ey the property to the real owner. ,here the complaint for reco'ery of
ownership and possession of a parcel of land alleges that some of the defendants
bo$ght said land from their co9defendants who had a defecti'e title thereto b$t
does not allege that the p$rchasers were p$rchasers in bad faith or with notice of
the defect in the title of their 'endors, there is a fail$re to state a ca$se of action.
Jy reason of this fail$re, pri'ate respondent %$sana #ealty, +nc. is pres$med to be
an innocent p$rchaser for 'al$e and in good faith, entitled to protection $nder the
23. De Guzman v National Treasurer
%o$ses Eraln Dilambiling and @s$ncon Felarde p$rchased a parcel of land from %ta.
/$cia #ealty and De'. +nc. @fter their honeymoon in C$rope, they proceeded to
%a$di @rabia where they were wor(ing as @ccontant and 7$rse respecti'ely. The
spo$ses entr$sted the deed of sale and Certi1cate of Title to their long9time friend
Darilyn Jelgica. Darilyn, howe'er failed to deli'er the said title despite her promise
of bringing it with her to %a$di. This prompted Erlan to call his relati'es and
in'estigate abo$t what happened. )e was informed that the Certi1cate of Title
co'ering the said parcel of land had indeed been transferred in their names b$t was
s$bse$ently cancelled and title transferred in the names of I I I the spo$ses De
Dilambiling was also told abo$t the circ$mstances that led to the cancellation of
their title. +t appears that while the spo$ses Dilambiling were in %a$di @rabia, a
co$ple identifying themsel'es as the spo$ses Erlan and @s$ncion Dilambiling went
to the ho$se of a certain 7ati'idad *a'iniar, a real estate bro(er, in$iring if the
latter co$ld 1nd a b$yer for their lot located in Fermont %$bdi'ision, @ntipolo, #i>al.
*a'iniar accompanied the said co$ple to the ho$se of AtheB spo$ses De &$>man.
)a'ing somehow obtained possession of the owner=s d$plicate copy of the
certi1cate of title in the name of the spo$ses Dilambiling, the impostor9co$ple were
able to con'ince the de &$>mans to b$y the property. On :8 7o'ember 45"5, the
impostor9co$ple, posing as the spo$ses Dilambiling, eIec$ted a Deed of @bsol$te
%ale in fa'or of AtheB spo$ses de &$>man who paid the stip$lated p$rchase price of
?55,:88.88. On 38 @pril 45"6, Athe De &$>mansB registered the said sale with the
#egister of Deeds of Dari(ina who cancelled the certi1cate of title in the name of
the Dilambilings and iss$ed TCT 7o. 7944!:65 in the names of AtheB De &$>manAsB.
Erlan Dilambing $ic(ly ret$red to the ?hilippines and 1led a case for ann$lment of
the of the sale. They won the case despite se'eral appeals by the De &$>man
spo$ses. The De &$>man %po$ses being aggrie'ed 1led an acton against the
@ss$rance F$nd. The #TC rendedred decision in their fa'or b$t was later o'ert$rned
by the C@. )ence, this present petition.
,hether or not the De &$>man spo$ses may reco'er from the ass$rance f$nd.
7o. @ per$sal of the pro'ision on the ass$rance f$nd pro'ides the following cases
where one may reco'er:
4< @ny person who s$stains loss or damage $nder the following conditions:
a< that there was no negligence on his part. and
b< that the loss or damage s$stained was thro$gh any omission, mista(e or
malfeasance of the co$rt personnel, or the #egistrar of Deeds, his dep$ty, or other
employees of the #egistry in the performance of their respecti'e d$ties $nder the
pro'isions of the /and #egistration @ct, now, the ?roperty #egistration Decree. or
:< @ny person who has been depri'ed of any land or interest therein $nder the
following conditions:
a< that there was no negligence on his part.
b< that he was depri'ed as a conse$ence of the bringing of his land or interest
therein $nder the pro'isions of the ?roperty #egistration Decree. or by the
registration by any other person as owner of s$ch land. or by mista(e, omission or
misdescription in any certi1cate of owner=s d$plicate, or in any entry or
memorand$m in the register or other oKcial boo( or by any cancellation. and
c< that he is barred or in any way precl$ded from bringing an action for the reco'ery
of s$ch land or interest therein, or claim $pon the same.
The case of the petitioners does not fall within case 4 or case :. ?etitionersL claim is
not s$pported by the p$rpose for which the @ss$rance F$nd was established. The
@ss$rance F$nd is intended to relie'e innocent persons from the harshness of the
doctrine that a certi1cate is concl$si'e e'idence of an indefeasible title to land.
?etitioners did not s$Mer any pre-$dice beca$se of the operation of this doctrine.
On the contrary, petitioners so$ght to a'ail of the bene1ts of the Torrens %ystem by
registering the property in their name. Enfort$nately for petitioners, the original
owners were able to -$dicially reco'er the property from them. That petitioners
e'ent$ally lost the property to the original owners, howe'er, does not entitle them
to compensation $nder the @ss$rance F$nd. ,hile we commiserate with
petitioners, who appear to be 'ictims of $nscr$p$lo$s sco$ndrels, we cannot
sanction compensation that is not within the lawLs contemplation. @s we said in
Treas$rer of the ?hilippines 's. Co$rt of @ppeals, the &o'ernment is not an ins$rer
of the $nwary citi>en=s property against the chicanery of sco$ndrels. ?etitioners=
reco$rse is not against the @ss$rance F$nd, as the Co$rt of @ppeals pointed o$t, b$t
against the rog$es who d$ped them.
2. Re!es v "#$%M&R D%'. C#R(.
%poo$ses @rsenio and 7ie'es #eyes were owners of a parcel of land located in
?aran$e. They 1led a case against %O/CD@# who entered their fenced property
thro$gh force. Joth parties claim ownersip of the said property. The respondents
contend that the case sho$ld be dismissed for lac( of -$risdiction beca$se the
nat$re of the case is one of forcible entry.
,hether petitioners= complaint is one for forcible entry falling $nder the -$risdiction
of the DTC or for the reco'ery of ownership falling $nder the -$risdiction of the #TC.
*$risdiction of the co$rt o'er the s$b-ect matter of the action is determined by the
allegations of the complaint, irrespecti'e of whether or not the plaintiM is entitled to
reco'er $pon all or some of the claims asserted therein. +t cannot be made to
depend on the eIcl$si'e characteri>ation of the case by one of the parties. @fter
re'iewing caref$lly the allegations in petitioners= complaint, there is no reason to
de'iate from the 1nding of the @ppellate Co$rt that indeed the complaint is for
forcible entry. %igni1cantly, the complaint was 1led on *an$ary 46, 455:, or within
one ;4< year, speci1cally within eight ;"< days, from the alleged forcible entry to the
property by respondent Tanseco on *an$ary 6, 455:. ,hile captioned as a
Complaint for Damages with @pplication for a T#O and ?reliminary +n-$nction, yet
the allegations therein show that petitioners are asserting their right to the peacef$l
possession of their property which is proper in an e-ectment s$it. @ll e-ectment
cases are within the -$risdiction of the DTC.
). Cadastral "!stem o* Registration
2. Director o* $ands v C& and Manlapaz
2. Calimpong v Gumela
The &$mela=s are owners of a parcel of land by 'irt$e of decree no. 36:63" iss$ed
in 45:". They hired an o'erseer to manage the property. +n 455:, they decided to
partition the lot where they disco'ered that a portion of which is being occ$pied by
@necito Calimpong. +t t$rned o$t that Calimpong applied for Free ?atent o'er the
lot. The petitioners, in *$ly 4553, 1led a case for $ieting of title against Calimpong.
+n @$g$st, the ?ro'incial Cn'ironment and 7at$ral #eso$rces OKcer appro'ed the
free patent application which was forwarded to the #egister of Deeds which iss$ed
an OCT to Calimpong. The ?etitioners amended their complaint impleading ?C7#O
and #egister of Deeds. Calimpong contends that the lot has long been abandoned
and that the petitioners did not p$rs$e the titling of the land, c$lti'ation and
,hether or not the s$b-ect property may still be a s$b-ect of a Free ?atent.
7o. +t is $ndisp$ted that the lot was -$dicially ad-$dicated and an order for the
registration of the lot in the name of the predecessors9in9interest of the heirs
;hereafter respondent< as 0owners in fee simple2 was iss$ed on December 48, 45:!,
and that a decree of registration was iss$ed on October 45, 45:", to wit:
,hether a certi1cate of title was iss$ed in the name of respondent=s
predecessors9in9interest is immaterial. For, following De la Merced, the title of
ownership on respondent=s predecessors9in9interest was 'ested as of 45:!. The lot,
for all intents and p$rposes, had become from said date registered property which
co$ld not be ac$ired by ad'erse possession and was, therefore, beyond the
-$risdiction of the /and Danagement J$rea$ of the DC7# ;formerly the J$rea$ of
/ands< to s$b-ect it to free patent.
the Director of /ands, has no a$thority to grant a free patent for land that has
ceased to be a p$blic land and has passed to pri'ate ownership, and a title so
iss$ed is n$ll and 'oid. The n$llity arises not, from the fra$d or deceit, b$t from the
fact that the land is not $nder the -$risdiction of the J$rea$ of /ands.
%ince the DC7# had no a$thority to grant a free patent o'er the lot, Free ?atent 7o.
85!:4853564 iss$ed on @$g$st 4!, 4553 by the ?C7#O of Namboanga del 7orte
and Original Certi1cate of Title 7o. ?933!"8 iss$ed on @$g$st 45, 4553 by the
#egister of Deeds of Namboanga del 7orte in fa'or of petitioner Calimpong are n$ll
and 'oid.
2. Republic v 'era
/$isito Dartine> and Thelma Tanalega both applied for resgitration of their parcels of
land with the lower co$rt. +n both cases, the Co$rt of First +nstance of Jataan in two
separate decisions, dated October 5, 45!: and October 46, 45!:, con1rmed the
titles to s$b-ect parcels of land and ad-$dicated them in fa'or of applicants /$isito
Dartine> and Thelma Tanalega, now respondents herein.
+n the instant petitions for re'iew the #ep$blic of the ?hilippines, thro$gh the
%olicitor &eneral, arg$ed that /ot 6:6, Dari'eles Cadastre was declared p$blic land
by the decision of the Cadastral Co$rt dated October 44, 453! and s$ch being the
case, the lower co$rt is witho$t -$risdiction o'er the s$b-ect matter of the
application for 'ol$ntary registration $nder @ct 656. ?etitioner li(ewise stressed that
the lands in $estion can no longer be s$b-ect to registration by 'ol$ntary
proceedings, for they ha'e already been s$b-ected to comp$lsory registration
proceedings $nder the Cadastral @ct.
,heter or not they can register the s$b-ect propertiesH
+t is noteworthy that as per the report of the Commissioner of /and #egistration,
the land s$b-ect matter of the instant proceedings Ois entirely inside /ot 7o. 6:6 of
the Cadastral %$r'ey of Dari'eles, ?ro'ince of Jataan, Cad. Case 7o. 45, /#C Cad.
#ecord 7o. 485!O. that some portions of /ot 7o. 6:6 were decreed and titles were
iss$ed therefor. and that Oportion declared ?$blic /and as per decision dated
October 44, 453!.O
@part from the foregoing, the s$r'ey plans s$bmitted by petitioners were not
appro'ed by the Director of /ands b$t by the /and #egistration Commission. The
/and #egistration Commission has no a$thority to appro'e original s$r'ey plans in
this partic$lar case. %ection 369@ of #.@. 7o. 63"5 relied $pon by respondents
applies only to lands s$b-ect of tenancy relation which are eIpropriated and s$b9
di'ided in fa'or of new amorti>ing9owner9bene1ciaries. The s$bmission of the plan
is a stat$tory re$irement of mandatory character and $nless the plan and its
technical description are d$ly appro'ed by the Director of /ands, the same are not
of m$ch 'al$e.
3. +ido,s and #rp-ans &ssociation .nc. v C& and #rtigas
/ Co.
,idows and Orphans @ssociation +nc. ;,+DO#@< see(s to register a parcel of land
located in P$e>on City. D$ring trial, Ortigas Q Co. ;O#T+&@%< 1led a motion to
dsmiss on the gro$nd that the petitioner was see(ing to register a land already
co'ered by a title belonging to them. D$ring trial it was fo$nd that the properties
they are contending are two diMerent properties located in two diMerent cities. The
land that ,+DO#@ is trying to register is located in P$e>on City and co'ers an area
of abo$t 456 hectares. On the other hand, the land registered $nder the title co'ers
an area of more or less 4! hectares located in %ta. @na. The trial co$rt dismissed
the motion of Ortigas hence they 1led an appeal to the C@ which ga'e credence to
their contention. The C@ appreciated the e'idence presented by Ortigas and th$s
r$led that the /#C sho$ld be en-oned from f$rther going with the land registration
case. @ggrie'ed, ,+DO#@ appealed the case to the %$preme Co$rt.
,hether or not the C@ has the power and -$risdiction to correct error in the TCTH
7o. The e'eidence presented by Ortgas is considered secondary e'idence and
sho$ld not ha'e been appreciated by the C@. F$rthermore, the $nilateral action of
respondent co$rt in s$bstit$ting its own 1ndings regarding the eItent of the
co'erage of the land incl$ded in TCT 7os. !!65: and !!653, ostensibly to correct
the error in, and conform with, the technical description fo$nd in OCT 354 based on
the plan and other e'idence s$bmitted by respondent Ortigas cannot be s$stained.
That f$nction is properly lodged with the oKce of the trial co$rt sitting as a land
registration co$rt and only after a f$ll9dress in'estigation of the matter on the
merits. +t is before the land registration co$rt that pri'ate respondent m$st add$ce
the proof that the disp$ted parcels of land is legally registered in its fa'or. J$t not
only that. #espondent co$rt committed a proced$ral lapse in correcting the alleged
error in the $estioned TCTs. @ certi1cate of title cannot be altered, amended or
cancelled eIcept in a direct proceeding in accordance with law ;%ec. 6", ?D 45:5.
7atalia #ealty Corp. '. Falle>, 4!3 %C#@ 536 A45"5B. Legarda v. Saleeby, 34 ?hil. 558
A4545B<. @lso, no correction of certi1cate of title shall be made eIcept by order of
the co$rt in a petition 1led for the p$rpose and entitled in the original case in which
the decree of registration was entered ;%ec. 44:, @ct 656. now %ec. 48", ?D 45:5<.
,hile the law 1Ies no prescripti'e period therefor, the co$rt, howe'er, is not
a$thori>ed to alter or correct the certi1cate of title if it wo$ld mean the reopening of
the decree of registration beyond the period allowed by law ;Rodriguez, v. Tirona,
6" ?hil. :66 A4535B<. ,herefore, the %$preme Co$rt reinstated the decision of the
/#C, set aside the decision of the C@ and remanded the case to the trial co$rt for
trial on the merits.
3. Garcia v C&.
+smael /ap$s was a receipient of a deed of sale grabted by the CF+ after a partition
proceeding in the 45:8s. The same deed was presented and recorded with the
#egister of Deeds. Jeca$se of s$ch registration, se'eral TCTs were gi'en to /ap$s.
)owe'er, it was mysterio$s why the same was not annotated at bac( of the OCT.
Deanwhile, in 456:, beca$se the OCT remained $ncancelled, it became the s$b-ect
of an ad-$dication to the #i'era=s. Joth /ap$s and the #i'eras were able to transfer
their titles to se'eral p$rchaser for 'al$e. /ater on, these p$rchasers disco'ered
that they had titles o'er the same property, hence this petition.
,hether or not the &arcia being an innocent p$rchaser for 'al$e has a better right
o'er the propertyH
7o, +smale /ap$s and his predecessors ha'e a btter right. prior est in tempore,
potior est in jure ;he who is 1rst in time is preferred in right< is followed in land
registration matters. There can be no do$bt that /ap$s was an innocent p$rchaser
for 'al$e. )e 'alidly transmitted to his s$ccessors9in9interest his indefeasible title or
ownership o'er the disp$ted lots or parcels of land. That title co$ld not be n$lli1ed
or defeated by the iss$ance forty9three Rears later to other persons of another title
o'er the same lots d$e to the fail$re of the register of deeds to cancel the title
preceding the title iss$ed to /ap$>. This m$st be so considering that /ap$s and his
interest remained in possession of the disp$ted s$ccessors in lots and the ri'al
claimants ne'er possessed the same.
OThe general r$le is that in the case of two certi1cates of title, p$rporting to incl$de
the same land, the earlier in date prevail, whether the land comprised in the latter
certi1cate be wholly, or only in part, comprised in the earlier certi1cateO ;)ogg,
@$stralian Torrens
O,here two certi1cates ;of title< p$rport to incl$de the same land, the earlier in date
pre'ails. ... +n s$ccessi'e registrations, where more than once certi1cate is iss$ed in
respect of a party estate or interest in land, the ?erson claiming $nder the prior
certi1cate is entitled to the estate or interest. and that person is deemed to hold
$nder the prior certifcate who is the holder of, or whose claim is deri'ed directly or
indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certi1cate iss$ed in
respect thereofO
3. $ozano v 0allesteros
Daria 7ie'es 7$ne> T$a>on was the original owner of the property in $estion. +n
455", T$a>on sold portion 0P2 of the property to Darciana De Dios.+n 455", De Dios
so$ght for appro'al of consolidation9s$bdi'ison plan which was granted hence a TCT
was iss$ed in her name. De Dios later on mortgaged the property to Sal$yagan
r$ral Jan( in %an Carlos, ?angasinan.
+n 4563, petitioners /o>ano so$ght the annotation of their ad'erse claim at the bac(
of the title. Thereafter, they 1led for a petition for settlement of estate of their
mother incl$ding portion 0P2. +n 4566, De Dios sold the land to Jallesteros who was
later able to transfer it to his name.
?etitioners 1led se'eral ci'il cases for recon'eyance and reco'ery b$t the same was
f$tile. The respondents contend that they failed to obser'e the formal re$isited for
annotation of ad'erse claim which is damaging to their petition. )ence they
appealed to the C@ which ele'ated the case to the %$preme Co$rt.
,hether or not the formal re$isites in registering an ad'erse claim was obser'ed.
7o. The following are the formal re$isites for an ad'erse claim:
4. the ad'erse claimant m$st state the following in writing:
a. his alleged right or interest.
b. how and $nder whom s$ch alleged right or interest is
c. the description of the land in which the right or interest
is claimed, and
d. the certi1cate of title n$mber
:. the statement m$st be signed and sworn to before a notary p$blic or
other oKcer a$thori>ed to administer oath. and
3. the claimant sho$ld state his residence or the place to which all
notices may be ser'ed $pon him.
@ c$rsory reading of the ad'erse claim 1led by the plaintiMs shows that the same
has failed to comply with the formal re$isites of %ection 448 of @ct 656, more
speci1cally the appellantsL fail$re to state how and $nder whom their alleged right
or interest is ac$ired. Th$s, the eMect of s$ch non9compliance renders the ad'erse
claim non9registrable and ineMecti'e.
@nent the appellantLs contention that appellee is bo$nd by the decision in the
former recon'eyance case against De Dios, the lower co$rt stressed that it is
con'inced that the decision rendered in Ci'il Case 7o. D94553 is a n$llity, beca$se
an indispensable party li(e the defendant herein was not bro$ght as party therein.
The fail$re of the plaintiMs to implead the present defendant in that case,
constit$ted a legal obstacle to the eIercise of -$dicial power in said case, and
rendered any -$dgment therein an absol$te n$llity. ,e r$le that Oowners of property
o'er which recon'eyance is asserted are indispensable parties, witho$t whom no
relief is a'ailable and witho$t whom the co$rt can render no 'alid -$dgment.O
The %$preme Co$rt aKrmed /ower Co$rt=s decision.
3. "a1onas v C&
+n 45"3, Eychocde and his so$se sold a parcel of land to the %po$ses %a-onas. They
entered into a contract to sell where the ownership of the property wo$ld transfer
after f$ll payment of the Contract ?rice. They also annotated an ad'erse claim on
the title based on the said contract to sell. +n 45"6, after f$ll payment, a deed of
absol$te sale was entered into by both spo$ses and the same was registered a year
later in 45"5.
Deanwhile, $n(nown to the %po$ses %a-onas, Eychocde owns ?ilares a s$m of
money. @ copromse agreement was entered into originally b$t the same was
$nsatis1ed. D$e to this ?ilares applied for a writ of eIection in 45":. /ater, in
45"5, a notice of le'y in eIec$tion was iss$ed and the same was presented by the
%heriM to the #egister of Deeds Dari(ina.
,hen the deed of sale of the spo$ses %a-onas was registered in 45"5 and a TCT was
iss$ed, they were s$rprised to see the annotation of the notice of le'y.
Despite demands to remo'e the notice of le'y, ?ilares did not heed, hence ths
present petition. ?ilares contends that the ad'erse claim has no more eMect when
the notice of le'y was annotated $oting sec. !8 of ?D 45:5 where it states that an
ad'erse claim has eMect only for 38 days.
,hether or not the ad'erse claim originally annotated immediately lost eMect after
38 daysH
The pro'isions of the law sho$ld be ta(en as awhole and not in parts in order to see
the f$ll meaning and intent. Constr$ing the pro'ision as a whole wo$ld reconcile
the apparent inconsistency between the portions of the law s$ch that the pro'ision
on cancellation of ad'erse claim by 'eri1ed petition wo$ld ser'e to $alify the
pro'ision on the eMecti'ity period. The law, ta(en together, simply means that the
cancellation of the ad'erse claim is still necessary to render it ineMecti'e,
otherwise, the inscription will remain annotated and shall contin$e as a lien $pon
the property. For if the ad'erse claim has already ceased to be eMecti'e $pon the
lapse of said period, its cancellation is no longer necessary and the process of
cancellation wo$ld be a $seless ceremony. +t was held that 0'alidity or
eKcacio$sness of the claim may only be determined by the Co$rt $pon petition by
an interested party, in which e'ent, the Co$rt shall order the immediate hearing
thereof and ma(e the proper ad-$dication as -$stice and e$ity may warrant. @nd it
is only when s$ch claim is fo$nd $nmeritorio$s that the registration of the ad'erse
claim may be cancelled, thereby protecting the interest of the ad'erse claimant and
gi'ing notice and warning to third parties.2
+n s$m, the disp$ted inscription of ad'erse claim on the Transfer Certi1cate of Title
7o. 79!58!3 was still in eMect on Febr$ary 4:, 45"5 when P$e>on City %heriM
#oberto &arcia annotated the notice of le'y on eIec$tion thereto. Conse$ently, he
is charged with (nowledge that the property so$ght to be le'ied $pon on eIec$tion
was enc$mbered by an interest the same as or better than that of the registered
owner thereof. %$ch notice of le'y cannot pre'ail o'er the eIisting ad'erse claim
inscribed on the certi1cate of title in fa'or of the petitioners.
,herefore, the %$preme Co$rt re'ersed and set aside the C@ decision and
reinstated the r$ling of the lower co$rt.
3. Diaz2Duarte v #ng
#ogelia Dia>9D$arte inherited certain parcels of land in Tacloban. +n 45!5, #ogelia
sold some portions in fa'or of ,ifredo Corregidor. %ometime later, Corregidor sold
bac( the lots to rogelai which was e'idenced by a deed of rep$rchase eIec$ted by
him in fa'or of #ogelia. #ogelia eIec$ted an ad'erse claim to be annotated on the
title on the basis of the deed of sale. +n 45"8, after 38 days ha'e lapsed, the
#egister of Deeds cancelled the ad'erse claim.
+n 45"4, despite already selling bac( the property to #ogelia, Corregidor resold the
property to the %po$ses Ong. /ater on, Ong mortgaged the aid property to #CJC.
The Ong=s contend that they are innocent p$rchasers for 'al$e hence they sho$ld
ha'e a better right. #ogelia contends that she has a standing ad'erse claim hence
Ong cannot be considred a p$rchaser in good faith. ,ho among #ogelia and Ong
has the better right o'er the propertyH
,hether or not the spo$ses Ong has a better right o'er the property.
#ogelia has a better right o'er the property. @s )eld in %a-onas ' C@, a notice of
ad'erse claim remains 'alid e'en after the lapse of the 389day period pro'ided by
%ection !8 of ?.D. 7o. 45:5 or the ?roperty #egistration Decree. Jefore an ad'erse
claim co$ld be cancelled a petition for that p$rpose sho$ld 1rst be 1led. +n a
petition for cancellation of ad'erse claim, a hearing m$st 1rst be cond$cted. The
hearing will aMord the parties an opport$nity to pro'e the propriety or impropriety
of the ad'erse claim. ?etitioner was $nlawf$lly denied this opport$nity when the
#egistrar of Deeds a$tomatically cancelled the ad'erse claim. 7eedless to state,
the cancellation of her ad'erse claim is ineMecti'e.
F$rthermore, Ong cannot be said to be a p$rchaser in good faith beca$se despite
their instr$ctions to 'erify the title to their co$nsel, @tty. #eyes, the same did not act
on it. )ad their co$nsel done this, he wo$ld ha'e disco'ered the ad'erse claim of
#ogelia. The %po$ses Ong are bo$nd by the actions of their co$nsel.
@ p$rchaser in good faith and for 'al$e is one who b$ys the property of another
witho$t notice that some other person has a right to or interest in s$ch property and
pays a f$ll and fair price for the same, at the time of s$ch p$rchase, or before he
has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. The
ad'erse claim of petitioner #ogelia Dia>9D$arte was annotated in CorregidorLs title
as early as October 4!, 45!5. +t was eIisting when Corregidor sold the property to
respondents Ong on Febr$ary :", 45"4. )ence, respondent spo$ses cannot be
considered innocent p$rchasers for 'al$e and in good faith. Their claim o'er /ot
4:8" m$st yield to the lien in fa'or of petitioner.
The %$preme Co$rt decided to re'erse the decision of the C@ and reinstate the
decion of the Trial Co$rt.