GABRIEL vs.

REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL

G.R. No. L-17956 September !" 196

FA#TS

Petitioner Elisa D. Gabriel, filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila, an adverse
claim, against the properties registered in the name of oppositor-appellant, Juanita
R. Domingo, her sister. s grounds for the adverse claim, petitioner allege !
"otwithstanding the registration of the foregoing properties in the name of Juanita R.
Domingo, the same properties have been included in the amended inventor# of
the estate of the late ntonia Re#es $da. de Domingo, filed b# Elisa Domingo de
Gabriel as the# are in fact properties ac%uired b# the deceased during her lifetime.
&he registration of the titles of these properties,' should have been made in the
name of said ntonia Re#es $da. de Dominga, but due to commission of fraud and
deceit, b# said Juanita R. Domingo, who was then living in the same house with the
deceased, all the titles of the above stated properties were registered instead in
her name, thus depriving herein adverse claimant who is li(ewise an heir of
ntonia Re#es $da. de Domingo of her lawful rights, interests and participations over
said properties.

  similar notice of adverse claim was presented b# petitioner with the Register of Deeds
of Ri)al, on the properties registered in the name of Juanita R. Domingo, located in
Ri)al Province, anchoring that the sub*ect properties are included in the
amended inventor# of the estate of their late mother ntonia Re#es $da, de Domingo,
who is the true owner of said properties, and considering that the registrations in
the name of Juanita R. Domingo were onl# made fraudulentl#, thus depriving herein
adverse claimant of her lawful rights, interest and participations over said properties.

Domingo opposed, claiming that the dverse claim was instituted for harassment, had
no legal basis, and such opposition will do irreparable loss to her.

&he Register of Deeds of Manila, elevated the matter to the +and Registration
ommission en onsulta, for determination as to whether the registration of the claim is
proper determination b# this ommission.

&he Register of Deeds of Ri)al denied registration of the "otice of dverse laim, stating
that such has been found to be legall# defective or otherwise not sufficient in law and is
therefore denied on the ground that where there are other provisions of remedies under
this ct, the affidavit of adverse claim is not applicable.

Elisa D. Gabriel appealed the above denial to the +and Registration

ommission.1awphîl.nèt 
&he +and Registration ommission rendered a decision holding that the notices
of adverse claim filed b# Elisa D. Gabriel with the Registries of Manila and Ri)al are
registrable. Registration should not however be confused with validit#. &he registration
of the adverse claim will not b# itself alone ma(e them valid. &heir validit# will
ultimatel# decided in pecial Proceeding "o. /01 or, in alternative, in the more
e2peditious remed# provided for in 334 of ct "o. 56/, i.e., a speed# hearing upon the
%uestion the validit# of the adverse claim.

7ence, this appeal.

ISS$ES

3. 8hether or not the adverse claims are registrable' and

. 9n holding that it is the mandator# dut# of the Register of Deeds to register the
instant notices of adverse claims :whether or not the# are valid, and :whether
or not the# are frivolous merel# intended to harass.:

%ELD

3. 9n addition to the well-ta(en dis%uisitions of the +.R.., it should be observed that

section 334 of ct "o. 56/, which is the legal provision applicable to the case, is
divided into two parts; the first refers to the dut# of the part# who claims an#
part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, subse%uent
to the date of the original registration' and the re%uirements to be complied
with in order that such statement shall been titled to registration as an adverse
claim, thus showing the ministerial function of the Register of Deeds, when no
defect is found on the face of such instrument' and the second applies onl#
when, after registration of the adverse claim, a part# files an appropriate petition
with a
c o m p e t e n t c o u r t w h i ch s h a ll gr a n t a s p
v a lid it # o f s u c h a d ve r s e c la im , an d to
ee d # h e a r in g u p o n t h e % u s ti o n o f th e
n te r a de c r e e , a s *u s tic e a n d e % u it # re
%uire' and in this hearing, the competent court shall resolve whether the
adverse claim is frivolous or ve2atious, which shall serve as the basis in ta2ing
the costs. 9n the instant case, the first part was alread# acted upon b# the +.P..
which resolved in favor of the registrabilit# of the two adverse claims and this
part should have been considered as closed. 8hat is left, is the determination
of the validit# of the adverse claims b# competent court, after the filing of the
corresponding petition for hearing, which the appellant had not done.

2.  s to the second issue, the +and Registration ommission did not state that it
was mandator# for a Register of Deeds to register invalid or frivolous documents,
or those intended to harass' it merel# said that whether the document is invalid,
frivolous or intended to harass, is not the dut# of a Register of Deeds to decide, but a court of competent *urisdiction, a

&he upreme ourt affirmed th

holding the registrabilit# of the ad