1958 EN BANC case
TITLE TY SIN TEI vs DY PIAO
GR No. L-11271; May 28, 1958
Dy Lac, a Chinese National (long before the
FACTS effectivity of the Philippine Constitution),
executed a document donating to Ty Sin Tei two
parcels of land with all the improvements
thereon.
By reason of said deed, the aforementioned
certificates of title were cancelled and new
TCTs were issued by the RD of Manila in the
name of Ty Sin Tei, single, Chinese.
Simultaneously and on the same day, Dy Lac
executed another deed of donation, this time in
favor of Tomás Dy Suan Choan, Ty Sin Tei's
minor illegitimate son, giving him another
parcel of land located at Magallanes and Anda
streets, Intramuros, Manila.
However, barely 2 months thereafter, said minor
died and the property thus ,passed to and was
inherited by his mother, who secured a
corresponding certi􏰈cate of title over the same
parcel of land in her favor.
Several year later, Dy Lac died. In his will, Ty
Sin Tei was named executrix thereof; and the
latter instituted special proceedings for the
probate for the testate estate of the deceased, Dy
Lac.
However, pending her pending her qualification
as executrix, the Court appointed Equitable
Banking Corp (EBC) as special administrator of
the testate estate of Dy Lac.
EBC then filed a civil case to annul the
donations consisting of real and personal
1990 Case
VILLAFLOR vs JUEZAN
GR No. L-35205; April 17, 1990
Juezan registered his affidavit of adverse claim in the
subject TCT and also sought the surrender of the
owner’s duplicate copy (ODC) of said TCT in order
that the deed of sale in his favor will be registered.
In the civil case, defendant raised the issue of the
validity of the deed of sale in favor of Juezan. In fact,
trial was had on this issue and this case until the
present is pending decision in view of the death of
the presiding Judge Abbas.
More than 4 years after Juezan’s adverse claim was
annotated, Villaflor presented for registration 2 deeds
of sale affecting the land subject of the action.
It is this adverse claim which Villaflor seeks to be
cancelled in this case. The lower court did not order
the cancellation of Juezan’s adverse claim.
Hence, this appeal.
2018 Case
VALDERAMA vs ARGUELLES
GR No. 223660; April 2, 2018
Respondents alleged that Conchita, who was the
registered owner of a parcel of land consisting of
1000 sqm located in Sampaloc, Manila freely and
voluntarily executed an absolute deed of sale of
the subject property in favor of respondents. The
subject property was subsequently registered in
the names of respondents under TCT No.
266311.
Conchita filed an affidavit of adverse claim
which was registered and annotated on TCT No.
266311. On January 24, 2008, Conchita died.
As registered owners of the subject property,
respondents prayed for the cancellation of the
adverse claim in the petition subject of this
controversy.
Thereafter, petitioner and Tarcila, as full blooded
sisters of Conchita, filed an opposition to the
petition. They claimed that upon Conchita's
death, the latter's claims and rights against the
subject property were transmitted to her heirs by
operation of law.
While the petition to cancel adverse claim was
pending before the RTC, respondents filed a
complaint for recovery of ownership and physical
possession of a piece of realty and its
improvements with damages and with prayer for
the issuance of temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction against
petitioner and Tarcila, among others.
Respondents filed a manifestation and motion
praying for the outright cancellation of the
adverse claim annotated on the TCT No. 266311
on the ground that petitioner's subsequent filing
 properties made by the deceased to Ty Sin Tei of notice of lis pendens rendered the issue moot
on the ground that the latter was an alien and academic.
disqualified to acquire lands in the Philippines
and otherwise had no right to possess said
properties. The Court dismissed EBC’s suit.

Thereafter, Dy Piao (Dy Lac’s son by his first

marriage in China) instituted a civil action for
the revocation of donations and or/reconveyance
alleging that through influence exerted on Dy
Lac by Ty Sin Tei, with whom the former had
extramarital relations, said Dy Lac donated to
the latter and her son several parcels of land.

Dy Piao, on the same day, also caused the

annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the
subject TCTs. However, said civil case was
dismissed for failure to prosecute.

But Dy Piao immediately instituted another

action which, at the time of the filing of the
instant case was still pending determination in
the lower court. A notice of lis pendens was
likewise correspondingly annotated at the back
of the subject TCT.

Ty Sin Tein then filed a petition for the

cancellation of the adverse claim appearing on
subject TCT on the ground that the prior civil
case had already been dismissed by the lower
court and said order had already attained
finality.

Whether the institution of an action and the Whether an adverse claim annotated in a transfer Whether the subsequent annotation of a notice of
ISSUE corresponding annotation of a notice of lis certificate of title may be cancelled when the validity lis pendens on a certificate renders the
pendens at the back of a certificate of title or invalidity of the claim is still subject of inquiry in cancellation of adverse claim on the same title
invalidates a prior notation of an adverse claim a civil case pending resolution by the trial court. moot and academic. NO
appearing on the same title, where the
aforementioned action and the adverse claim
refer to the same right or interest sought to be
recovered.

RULING The validity or efficaciousness of the claim, The basis of the civil case is a deed of absolute sale No. A subsequent annotation of a notice of lis
however, may only be determined by the Court allegedly executed by Simon Maghanay in favor of pendens on a certificate of title does not
upon petition by an interested party, in which
event, the Court shall order the immediate
hearing thereof and make the proper
adjudication as justice and equity may warrant.
And it is ONLY when such claim is found
unmeritorious that the registration thereof may
be cancelled. In the case at bar, no such petition
was filed by appellee who should be the party
interested in having the notation cancelled.
Instead, We find that from August 22, 1951,
when the adverse claim was registered, to March
21, 1955, when the notice of lis pendens was
annotated, petitioner-appellee took no step in
having the claim inquired into or investigated in
order that the question of the validity of such
claim may be resolved.
appellant Jose Juezan.
This document is also the basis of the Affidavit of
Adverse Claim ordered cancelled by the trial court.
The purpose of said adverse claim is to protect the
interest of the appellant pending this litigation.
Thus, considering that a notice of lis pendens had
been annotated the TCT of Villaflor, the Court finds
no basis for maintaining the adverse claim.
This Court sees no reason for disturbing the
questioned order of the trial court dated August 25,
1967 directing the cancellation of the Jeuzan’s
adverse claim at the back of transfer certificate of
title No. T-7601. The notice of lis pendens filed by
the Juezan affecting the same property in connection
with the civil case is sufficient.
necessarily render a petition for cancellation of
adverse claim on the same title moot and
academic.
A notice of lis pendens is a mere incident of an
action which does not create any right nor lien. It
may be cancelled without a court hearing.
In contrast, an adverse claim constitutes a lien on
a property. As such, the cancellation of an
adverse claim is still necessary to render it
ineffective; otherwise, the inscription will remain
annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the
property.
In sum, the main differences between the two are
as follows:
(1) an adverse claim protects the right of a
claimant during the pendency of a controversy
while a notice of lis pendens protects the right of
the claimant during the pendency of the action or
litigation; and
(2) an adverse claim may only be cancelled upon
filing of a petition before the court which shall
conduct a hearing on its validity while a notice of
lis pendens may be cancelled without a court
hearing.