You are on page 1of 2

Case No. 3: Sajonas v.

CA
Chapter 6: Apparently conficting provisions reconciled

Facts:
The case is for cancellation of the inscription of a Notice of
Levy on Execution from a certificate of Title covering a parcel
of real property. The inscription was caused to e made y the
private respondent on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N!"#$"3
of the %egister of &eeds of 'ari(ina) issued in the name of the
spouses *ychocde) and was later carried over to and
annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N!+$#,+" of the
same registry) issued in the name of the spouses -a.onas)
who purchased the parcel of land from the *ychocdes) and
are now the petitioners in this case.
The su.ect property was ought y -a.onas spouses on
-eptemer +#/3 and caused the annotation of their adverse
claim on 0ugust +#/,. The &eed of -ale was executed upon
the full payment of the purchase price and the same was
registered only on 0ugust +#/1.
'eanwhile) without the petitioners2 (nowledge) there has een
a compromise agreement etween the spouses *ychocde and
3ilares 4*ychocde2s .udgment creditor5) and a notice of levy on
execution was issued on 6eruary +7) +#/1. 8n 6eruary +7)
+#/1) defendant sheriff %oerto 9arcia of :ue;on City
presented said notice of levy on execution efore the %egister
of &eeds of 'ari(ina and the same was annotated at the ac(
of TCT No. "#$"3 as Entry No. +737/3.
Issues: <hich should e preferred etween the notice of levy
on execution and the deed of asolute sale. The &eed of
0solute -ale was executed on -eptemer ,) +#/,) ut was
registered only on 0ugust 7/) +#/1) while the notice of levy on
execution was annotated six 465 months prior to the
registration of the sale on 6eruary +7) +#/1.
Held/Ratio Relevance to Statutory Construction:
The annotation of the adverse claim is e=uivalent to notice to
third persons of the interest of the claimant. The provision of
the law 43& +17#5 that the adverse claim is only valid for 3$
days cannot e upheld. Clearly) the intention of the law is
otherwise as may e gleaned on the following discussion:
>-ec. "$ 0dverse Claim! <hoever claims any part or interest
in registered land adverse to the registered owner) arising
suse=uent to the date of the original registration) may) if no
other provision is made in this decree for registering the same)
ma(e a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right
or interest) and how or under whom ac=uired) a reference to
the numer of certificate of title of the registered owner) the
name of the registered owner) and a description of the land in
which the right or interest is claimed.
The statement shall e signed and sworn to) and shall state
the adverse claimant?s residence) and a place at which all
notices may e served upon him. This statement shall e
entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of
title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty
days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said
period, the annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled
Capuchino @ -tatutory Construction 1
Case No. 3: Sajonas v. CA
Chapter 6: Apparently conficting provisions reconciled

upon filing of a verifiedpetition therefor by the party in
interest: 3rovided) however) that after cancellation) no second
adverse claim ased on the same ground shall e registered
y the same claimant.
Aefore the lapse of thirty days aforesaid) any party in interest
may file a petition in the Court of 6irst Bnstance where the land
is situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim) and the
court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the =uestion of the
validity of such adverse claim) and shall render .udgment as
may e .ust and e=uitale. Bf the adverse claim is ad.udged to
e invalid) the registration thereof shall e ordered
cancelled. Bf) in any case) the court) after notice and hearing
shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous)
it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than one
thousand pesos) nor more than five thousand pesos) in its
discretion. Aefore the lapse of thirty days) the claimant may
withdraw his adverse claim y filing with the %egister of &eeds
a sworn petition to that effect.C
Construing the provision as a whole would reconcile the
apparent inconsistency etween the portions of the law such
that the provision on cancellation of adverse claim y verified
petition would serve to =ualify the provision on the effectivity
period. The law) ta(en together) simply means that the
cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it
ineffective) otherwise) the inscription will remain annotated and
shall continue as a lien upon the property. 6or if the adverse
claim has already ceased to e effective upon the lapse of
said period) its cancellation is no longer necessary and the
process of cancellation would e a useless ceremony.
To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as
asolute and without =ualification limited to thirty days defeats
the very purpose for which the statute provides for the remedy
of an inscription of adverse claim) as the annotation of an
adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of
a person over a piece of real property where the registration of
such interest or right is not otherwise provided for y the Land
%egistration 0ct or 0ct ,#6 4now 3.&. +17# or the 3roperty
%egistration &ecree5) and serves as a warning to third parties
dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest
or the same or a etter right than the registered owner thereof.
3etition was granted. The inscription of the notice of levy on
execution on TCT No. N!+$#,+" is ordered C0NCELLE&.
Capuchino @ -tatutory Construction 2