IN RE PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF ADVERSE CLAIM

July 29, 2011

COSETO V. DELOS REYES

Facts:

Francisco Coseto, petitioner in the herein land registration case, alleges that he is the
registered owner of a parcel of land located in Brgy. Manaring, Ilagan, Isabela with an area
of 20.3094 hectares covered by TCT No. T112330.

Respondents Domingo delos Reyes and Helen Tomas counter-argue that on February 9,
2007, Juan Agraviador, Jr., son of the late Nora Agraviador who is the predecessor-in-
interest of Francisco Coseto. In the affidavit, it was alleged that Domingo and Nora agreed
that half of the subject property shall belong to the former even if the whole area was in the
meantime registered in the name of the latter.

Hence, on March 5, 2007, respondents caused the registration of their Affidavit of Adverse
Claim dated March 1, 2007.

Petitioner now seeks to cancel the annotation of adverse claim on his title on the ground
that thirty-day period provided by law has already lapsed. Section 70 of PD 1529 states that
"...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 upon filing of a verified petition therefore by the party in interest…".

The RTC decided in favor of petitioner, thereby ordering the Registry of Deeds to cancel the
adverse claim. However, respondent elevated the case to the CA through an appeal
arguing that the trial court's decision is contrary to law. Petitioner, through his counsel
opposed the appeal alleging that granting the appeal of the respondent is tantamount to
extending the effectivity of the adverse claim provided in Section 70, of PD 1529.

ISSUE:
WON the expiration of the thirty-day period under Section 70, of PD 1529 renders the
adverse claim ineffective

RULING:

The appellate court ruled in the negative. Citing the cases of Diaz-Duarte vs. Sps Ong and
Sajonas V. CA, it explained that a notice of adverse claim remains valid and subsisting
even after the lapse of the 30-day period provided under Section 70 of PD 1529.
According to the appellate court, if it is the rationale of the law to automatically terminate the
effectivity of the adverse claim annotated in the title by mere lapse of time, then, the
registration of the same is a useless act.

Moreover, in Sajonas v. CA, a hearing must be conducted first in a petition for cancellation
of adverse claim. In the case at bar, respondent was unduly deprived of his right to be
heard.

Submitted by:

Lizeth B. Yago