Sample of Registrable and Non-registrable adverse claims

Expected hereditary rights do not constitute adverse claim

G.R. No. L-29740 November 10, 1978
TERESITA ROSAL ARRAZOLA, petitioner-appellee, vs. PEDRO A. BERNAS
and SOLEDAD VERNAS ALIVIO, oppositors-appellants.
Nature of the case:
This case is about the cancellation of an adverse claim which was annotated
on Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-6881 and T-6882 in the name of Teresita Rosal
Bernas (Arrazola), covering Lots Nos. 371 and 373 of the Pilar, Capiz cadastre with a
total area of 12,830 square meters.
Facts:
Teresita was allegedly an adopted daughter of Elviro Bernas, who executed in
Iloilo City a notarized will wherein he disinherited Teresita and instituted his brother
Pedro A. Bernas and his sister Soledad Bernas Alivio as heirs to all his properties,
including Lots Nos. 371 and 373 which he had allegedly "involuntarily transferred"
to Teresita. , Elviro Bernas died in Roxas City. His brother Pedro filed with the Court
of First Instance of Capiz a petition dated September 6, 1967 for the probate of his
will. Pedro Bernas filed with the register of deeds of Capiz a verified notice of
adverse claim. It was alleged that Lots Nos. 371 and 373 were conveyed by his
brother Elviro to Teresita Rosal Bernas "involuntarily, fictitiously and without
consideration" and that in Elviro's will the two lots were devised to him (Pedro) and
his sister Soledad. A copy of the will was attached to the adverse claim. After
annotation by the RD, peritioner filed for the cancellation of the adverse claim. The
motion was opposed by the Bernas and Alivio. Later, the lower court ordered the
cancellation of the annotation.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the cancellation of the annotation of adverse claim is
correct
2. Whether or not expected hereditary rights constitute adverse claims
Ruling:
1. No. We hold that the lower court erred in ordering the cancellation of the
adverse claim. It is true that the will of Elviro Bernas has not yet been
probated but the fact is that there is a pending proceeding for its probate.
And in that will the testator transmitted to his surviving brother and sister,
the herein oppositors-appellants or adverse claimants, the right to secure
a declaration as to the invalidity of his conveyance of lots Nos. 371 and
373 to Teresita Rosal Arrazola. Because of that will, Teresita's title to the
two lots have become controversial. To alert third persons, or for that
matter the whole world, to the fact that Pedro A. Bernas and Soledad
Bernas Alivio have an adverse claim on the two lots, section 110 of Act No.
496 gives them the remedy of causing to be annotated their adverse
claim on the titles of the two lots. If that remedy is not given to them, then
the registered owner can transfer the lots to an innocent purchaser for
value and, in that event, the unregistered adverse claim will be nullified or
frustrated.
2. No. Expected hereditary rights do not constitute an adverse claim. The
probate proceeding must be completed first. Hence, it is premature to
order the cancellation of the annotation thereof before it is finally
determined by the courts that the titles of Teresita Rosal Arrazola to the
disputed lots are indefeasible and that appellants' claim is devoid of merit.
The subject matter of a contract of sale constituting a part of a future inheritance
from parents, which cannot be a source of any right nor the creator of any
obligation between the parties, may not be registered as an adverse claim

G.R. No. 104482. January 22, 1996

BELINDA TAREDO, for herself and in representation of her brothers and
sisters, and TEOFILA CORPUZ TANEDO, representing her minor daughter
VERNA TANEDO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES
RICARDO M. TAREDO AND TERESITA BARERA TAREDO,respondents.
Facts:

On October 20, 1962, Lazardo Taedo executed a notarized deed of

absolute sale in favor of his eldest brother, Ricardo Taedo, and the latters
wife, Teresita Barera, private respondents herein, whereby he conveyed to the
latter in consideration of P1,500.00, one hectare of whatever share I shall
have over Lot No. 191 of the cadastral survey of Gerona, Province of Tarlac
and covered by Title T-l3829 of the Register of Deeds of Tarlac, the said
property being his future inheritance from his parents. Upon the death of his
father Matias, Lazaro executed an Affidavit of Conformity dated February 28,
1980 to re-affirm, respect, acknowledge and validate the sale I made in 1962.
On January 13, 1981, Lazaro executed another notarized deed of sale in favor
of private respondents covering his undivided ONE TWELVE (1/12) of a parcel
of land known as Lot 191. He acknowledged therein his receipt of P 10,000.00
as consideration therefor. In February 1981, Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold
the same property to his children, petitioners herein, through a deed of sale
dated December 29, 1980. On June 7, 1982, private respondents recorded
the Deed of Sale in their favor in the Registry of Deeds and the corresponding
entry was made in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 166451.
Petitioners claimed that their father executed an Absolute Deed of
Sale dated December 29, 1980, conveying to his ten children his allotted
portion. However, private respondents presented a deed of revocation of such
sale.
Issue:
Whether or not the subject future inheritance in the sale can be registered as
an adverse claim
Ruling:
No. The contract of sale which has a subject of future inheritance may not be
registered as an adverse claim.

At the outset, let it be clear that the errors which are reviewable by this
Court in this petition for review on certiorari are only those allegedly
committed by the respondent Court of Appeals and not directly those of the
trial court, which is not a party here. The assignment of errors in the petition
quoted above are therefore totally misplaced, and for that reason, the petition
should be dismissed. But in order to give the parties substantial justice we
have decided to delve into the issues as above re-stated. The errors attributed
by petitioners to the latter (trial) court will be discussed only insofar as they
are relevant to the appellate courts assailed Decision and Resolution.
The sale made in 1962 involving future inheritance is not really at issue
here. In context, the assailed Decision conceded it may be legally correct that
a contract of sale of anticipated future inheritance is null and void.3

But to remove all doubts, we hereby categorically rule that, pursuant to

Article 1347 of the Civil Code, (n)o contract may be entered into upon a
future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.
Consequently, said contract made in 1962 is not valid and cannot be the
source of any right nor the creator of any obligation between the parties.
Hence, the affidavit of conformity dated February 28, 1980, insofar as it
sought to validate or ratify the 1962 sale, is also useless and, in the words of
the respondent Court, suffers from the same infirmity. Even private
respondents in their memorandum4 concede this.
A waiver of hereditary tights in favor of another executed by a future heir while
the parents are still living is not valid. An adverse claim annotated on the title
of a property on the basis of such waiver is likewise invalid and ineffective. It
does not bind subsequent owners and does not hold them liable to the
claimant.
G.R. No. 165300. April 23, 2010.
Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer, petitioner, vs. Spouses Alfredo Diaz and Imelda
Diaz, REINA COMANDANTE and SPOUSES BIENVENIDO PANGAN and
ELIZABETH PANGAN, Respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner Atty. Ferrer represented Comandante, daughter of spouses Diazes
obtain loan to petitioner. The loan was secured by a Real Estate Mortgage
Contract. Petitioner further claimed that prior to said loan, Comandante, for a
valuable consideration of P600,000.00, which amount formed part of the
abovementioned secured loan, executed in his favor an instrument entitled
Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still
Undivided). The Diazes, however, reneged on their obligation as the checks
issued by Comandante were dishonored upon presentment. Despite repeated
demands, said respondents still failed and refused to settle the loan. Thus,
petitioner filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money Secured by Real
Estate Mortgage Contract against the Diazes and Comandante.
Issue:
1. Whether or not a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another executed
by a future heir while the parents are still living valid.
2. Whether or not such waiver may be a basis of a valid adverse claim
Ruling:
1. No, such waiver is not valid. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article
1347 of the Civil Code, no contract may be entered into upon a future
inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law. For the
inheritance to be considered future, the succession must not have
been opened at the time of the contract. A contract may be classified as
a contract upon future inheritance, prohibited under the second
paragraph of Article 1347, where the following requisites concur:

(1) That the succession has not yet been opened.

(2) That the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and,
(3) That the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of
a right which is purely hereditary in nature.
The same doctrine in the case of Tanedo vs. CA applies in this
case. In Taedo v. Court of Appeals,[39] we invalidated the contract of
sale between Lazaro Taedo and therein private respondents since the
subject matter thereof was a one hectare of whatever share the former
shall have over Lot 191 of the cadastral survey of Gerona, Province of
Tarlac and covered by Title T-13829 of the Register of Deeds of Tarlac.
It constitutes a part of Taedos future inheritance from his parents,
which cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation
between the parties. Guided by the above discussions, we similarly
declare in this case that the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest
Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by Comandante in favor
of petitioner as not valid and that same cannot be the source of any
right or create any obligation between them for being violative of the
second paragraph of Article 1347 of the Civil Code.
2. No. It is provided in Section 70 of PD 1529, that it is necessary that the
claimant has a right or interest in the registered land adverse to the
registered owner and that it must arise subsequent to registration.
Here, as no right or interest on the subject property flows from
Comandantes invalid waiver of hereditary rights upon petitioner, the
latter is thus not entitled to the registration of his adverse claim.
Therefore, petitioners adverse claim is without any basis and must
consequently be adjudged invalid and ineffective and perforce be
cancelled.
Sales and leases when the owner refuses to surrender owners copy for
annotation may be registered as adverse claims.
G.R. No. L-35744 September 28, 1984
WENCESLAO JUNIO, petitioner-appellant, vs. FELICIANO DE LOS SANTOS
and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PANGASINAN, respondents-appellees.
Facts:
Petitioner-appellant, Wenceslao Junio, is the registered owner of a
parcel of land situated at Bayambang, Pangasinan, with an area of 7.65
hectares, more or less, covered by TCT No. 1004 of the Registry of Deeds of
Pangasinan. By virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by
petitioner over the said parcel of land in favor of respondent Feliciano de los
Santos and his co-vendees, Guillermo de la Cruz and Jose Junio, an Affidavit

of Adverse Claim was executed by respondent, Feliciano de los Santos,

claiming a one-third undivided portion of petitioner's property, which claim was
annotated on petitioner's title. Petitioner denied having sold the property thus
he filed for the cancellation of the adverse claim. Petitioner claimed that the
annotation of adverse claim may only be resorted when there are no other
means of registering interest over the property. He thus invoked Section 57 of
PD 1529. Opposing, respondent de los Santos countered that he had tried to
avail himself of Section 57 by requesting petitioner to surrender his owner's
duplicate certificate of title but since the latter refused to do so he was
compelled to present an adverse claim pursuant to Section 110 of the Land
Registration Act.
Issue:
Whether or not the sales and leases may be registered as adverse
claims despite refusal of the owner to surrender duplicate copy
Ruling:
Yes, it can be registered as adverse claim. Under Section 57 of PD
1529:
Sec. 57. An owner desiring to convey in fee his registered land or any portion
thereof shall execute a deed of conveyance, which the grantor or grantee may
present to the register of deeds in the province where the land lies. The
grantor's duplicate certificate shall be produced and presented at the same
time. The register of deeds shall thereupon, in accordance with the rules and
instructions of the court, make out in the registration book a new certificate of
title to the grantee, and shall prepare and deliver to him an owner's duplicate
certificate. The register of deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate
certificates the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book
where the new certificate is registered, and a reference by number to the last
prior certificate. The grantor's duplicate certificate shall be surrendered and
the word 'canceled' stamped upon it. The original certificate shall also be
stamped 'canceled'. The deed of conveyance shall be filed and indorsed with
the number and place of registration of the certificate of title of the land
conveyed.
However, considering that petitioner had refused to surrender the title,
private respondent could not avail of Section 57. Hence, the latter correctly
resorted to the annotation of an adverse claim. Where the vendor fails to
deliver to the vendee the duplicate certificate of title, the vendee should file
men." with the Register of Deeds an adverse claim under Section 110 of Act
No. 496, as amended.
Interest on land based on lawyers contingent fee that arose after the original
registration may be registered as an adverse claim after the termination of the
litigation involving the land.

G.R. No. L-26096 February 27, 1979

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. SILVERETRA ABABA, ET AL.,
claimants, JUAN LARRAZABAL, MARTA C. DE LARRAZABAL, MAXIMO
ABAROQUEZ and ANASTACIA CABIGAS, petitioners-appellants, ALBERTO
FERNANDEZ, adverse claimant-appellee.
Facts:
The Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered a decision on May 29,
1961 adverse to the petitioner and so he appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Here, the petitioner had an agreement with his lawyer where he will be , liable
to compensate his lawyer whom he also retained for his appeal executed a
document on June 10, 1961 in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect whereby he
obliged himself to give to his lawyer one-half (1/2) of whatever he might
recover from Lots 5600 and 5602 should the appeal prosper.
The property sought to be recovered in Civil Case No. R6573 was
actually the share of the petitioner in Lots 5600 and 5602, which were part of
the estate of his deceased parents to be divided into three equal Parts, one
third of which shall be given to Maximo Abarquez. However, Agripina
Abarquez the share of her brother stating that the latter executed an
instrument of pacto de retro prior to the partition conveying to her any or all
rights in the estate of their parents. Petitioner discovered later that the claim of
his sister over his share was based on an instrument he was believe all along
to be a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of P700.00 which his sister gave
to him as a consideration for g care of their father during the latter's illness
and never an instrument of pacto de retro. Hence, he instituted an action to
annul the alleged instrument of pacto de retro. The pacto de retro sale was
annulled.
The case having been resolved and title having been issued to
petitioner, adverse claimant waited for petitioner to comply with ha obligation
under the document executed by him on June 10, 1961 by delivering the onehalf () portion of the said parcels of land. Petitioner refused and sold the
property.
Atty. Fernandez the registered the adverse claim.
Issue:
Whether or not the registration of adverse claim is valid
Ruling:
Yes. The registration is valid. Article 1491 prohibits only the sale or
assignment between the lawyer and his client, of property which is the subject
of litigation. As WE have already stated. "The prohibition in said article a only
to applies stated: The prohibition in said article applies only to a sale or
assignment to the lawyer by his client of the property which is the subject of
litigation. In other words, for the prohibition to operate, the sale or t of the
property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the
property. A contract for a contingent fee is not covered by Article 1491
because the tranfer or assignment of the property in litigation takes effect only
after the finality of a favorable judgment. In the instant case, the attorney's
fees of Atty. Fernandez, consisting of one-half (1/2) of whatever Maximo

Abarquez might recover from his share in the lots in question, is contingent
upon the success of the appeal. Hence, the payment of the attorney's fees,
that is, the transfer or assignment of one-half (1/2) of the property in litigation
will take place only if the appeal prospers. Therefore, the tranfer actually takes
effect after the finality of a favorable judgment rendered on appeal and not
during the pendency of the litigation involving the property in question. A
contract for a contingent fee does not violate the Canons of Professional Ethics.

As early as the case of Ulanday vs. Manila Railroad Co. (45 PhiL 540 [1923]),
WE held that contingent fees are not prohibited in the Philippines, and since
impliedly sanctioned by law 'Should be under the supervision of the court in order
that clients may be protected from unjust charges (Canons of Profession 1 Ethics).
Finally, a contingent fee contract is always subject to the supervision of the courts
with respect to the stipulated amount and may be reduced or nullified. So that in
the event that there is any undue influence or fraud in the execution of the contract
or that the fee is excessive, the client is not without remedy because the court will
amply protect him.

A claim based on occurences prior to original registration is not

regsitrable; nor can a claim based on prescription or adverse
possession be registered by the possessor when the land is already
registered in the name of another.
G.R. Nos. L-12614 and L-12615

January 29, 1960

JUAN ESTELLA, FELICISIMO VARGAS, MAXIMO DE LARA, DOMINGO DE

LARA, DOMINGO SAMSON and FLORENTINA TABOCBOC, petitionersappellants, vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, respondent-appellee.
JOHN O. YU and PHILIPPINE REALTY CORPORATION, intervenorsappellees.
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, petitioner-appellee, vs.PEDRO
MORAGA, respondent-appellant. JOHN O. YU and PHILIPPINE REALTY
CORPORATION, intervenors-appellees.
Facts:
On 24 December 1956 Pedro Moraga filed in the Office of the
Registar of Deeds in and for the province of Rizal and affidavit of
adverse claim subscribed and sworn to by him, No. 14, Block No. 51C of the subdivision plan Psd-15136, situated in barrio Calaan,
Municipality of Caloocan, province of Rizal, containing an area of
682.5 sq. m. more or less, described in transfer certificate of title
No. 47961 issued in the name of John O. Yu, married to Anicate T. Yu,
registered in the registration book in the registry of deeds of Rizal,
on the ground that in or about the year 1945 the Philippine Realty
Corporation sold that said parcel of land to a Chinese citizen
disqualified to acquire public agricultural lands or to holds lands of
the public domain in the Philippines; that the contract of sale of the
parcel of land in question to the disqualified alien is null and void
and neither the vendor nor the vendee retained or acquired

ownership thereof; that he and predecessor-in-interest have been in

actual continuous, public, exclusive and uninterrupted possession of
the parcel of land in question for more than ten years and built two
houses thereon; that on one has claimed from then ownership or
possession of the parcel of land in question or demanded from them
payment of rentals for its use and occupation had prescribed; and
that the vendee had in it already has prescribed; and that the
registered owner was aware that the appellant had been in
possession of the parcel of land in question when he brought it from
the Philippine Realty Corporation and that the transaction between
the Philippine Realty Corporation and the disqualified alien was
illegal. The appellant requested the Registrar of Deeds to record his
adverse claim pursuant to section 110, Act No. 496.
Issue:
Whether or not an adverse claim based on prescription or
adverse possession be registered
Ruling:
No. It cannot be registered. The parcel of land in question
being registered under Act No. 496, the appellant's claim of
prescription and/or adverse possession is untenable of "No title
registered in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession. On the second case,
where the petitioners asked for the registration of adverse claim
before the LRC ruled that: the parcel of land in question having been
registered under the provisions of Act No. 496, no title derogation to
that of the registered owner may be acquired by prescription or
claim would serve no useful purpose because it could not validly and
legally affect the parcel of land in question. The case of Gurbax
Singh Pabla and Co. vs. Reyes, 92 Phil., 177; 48 Off. Gaz., 4365 and
Register of Deeds of Manila vs. Tinoco, 53 Off. Gaz., 2804, cited by
the appellants in support of their contention that is the ministerial
duty of the Registrar of Deeds to register their respective adverse
claims, do not apply to the cases at bar. There this Court upheld the
registration of contracts of lease affecting the real property as an
adverse claim notwithstanding the assertion of invalidity and nullity
of the contracts of lease because that question should be
determined and passed upon in the proper proceedings after
registration. Here the appellant's adverse claim of ownership is
based upon prescription and adverse possession, would serve no
useful purpose and could not validly and legally after the parcel of
land.

An annotation at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title recognizing

the existence of the legal easement of subjacent and lateral support
constituted on the lengthwise or horizontal land
support/embankment area of 65 square meters, more or less, of the
property is ordered cancelled. It is not valid as an adverse claim.

G.R. No. 183719. February 2, 2011.

MARGARITA F. CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. NAPOLEON A. MONSOD,
Respondent.
Facts:

Petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land located

on Garnet Street, Manuela Homes, Pamplona, Las Pias City, and
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-36071, with an
area
of
one
hundred
thirty
(130)
square
meters
(sq.m.). Respondent, on the other hand, is the owner of the
property adjoining the lot of petitioner, located on Lyra
Street, Moonwalk Village, Phase 2, Las Pias City. There is a
concrete fence, more or less two (2) meters high,
dividing Manuela Homes from Moonwalk Village. On February 29,
2000, respondent caused the annotation of an adverse claim
against sixty-five (65) sq.m. of the property of petitioner covered
by TCT No. T-36071. The adverse claim was filed without any
claim of ownership over the property. Respondent was merely
asserting the existing legal easement of lateral and subjacent
support at the rear portion of his estate to prevent the property
from collapsing, since his property is located at an elevated
plateau of fifteen (15) feet, more or less, above the level of
petitioners property. Respondent also filed a complaint for
malicious mischief and malicious destruction before the office of
the barangay chairman.
Petitioner filed a complaint for damages and TRO/writ of
preliminary injunction and prayed as well for the cancellation of
the annotation of the adverse claim on the title.
According to respondent, there is an embankment assured
by the Pilar Development Corporation to be place at the boundary
between the adjoining properties. The reason for this is that some
when in 1985-1986, Pilar Development Corporation excavated
some portions of Manuela Homes to distribute the soil to lower
parts of the place. It resulted to the lowering of Manuela Homes
as compared to that of Moonwalk Village which were at about the
same level before. This gives reason why respondent asked for

the annotation of about 65 sq. m. of land subject of the work of

persons hired by petitioner that will be dug. The RTC rendered a
decision ordering the cancellation of the adverse claim of
respondent and to pay damages. The lower court ratiocinated
that the basis of the claim is easement that ;is why it is not
registrable. The CA, on appeal, reversed the decision of CA.

Issue:
Whether or not the easement of lateral and subjacent
support annotated at the back of the title is a valid adverse claim.

Ruling:
No. Respondents assertion that he has an adverse claim
over the 65 sq. m. property of petitioner is misplaced since he
does not have a claim over the ownership of the land. The
annotation of an adverse claim over registered land under Section
70 of Presidential Decree 1529 requires a claim on the title of the
disputed land. Annotation is done to apprise third persons that
there is a controversy over the ownership of the land and to
preserve and protect the right of the adverse claimant during the
pendency of the controversy. It is a notice to third persons that
any transaction regarding the disputed land is subject to the
outcome of the dispute.
An owner, by virtue of his surface right, may make
excavations on his land, but his right is subject to the limitation
that he shall not deprive any adjacent land or building of
sufficient lateral or subjacent support. We sustain the CA in
declaring that a permanent injunction on the part of petitioner
from making injurious excavations is necessary in order to protect
the interest of respondent. However, an annotation of the
existence of the subjacent and lateral support is no longer
necessary. It exists whether or not it is annotated or registered in
the registry of property. A judicial recognition of the same already
binds the property and the owner of the same, including her
successors-in-interest. Otherwise, every adjoining landowner
would come to court or have the easement of subjacent and
lateral support registered in order for it to be recognized and
respected.

The annotation of inscription to Entry No. 86-622/T-83618 is

obviously and indeed very clear indicating that the plaintiffs
registered adverse claim in reference to the sale of the same
property sought by defendants to be levied on attachment, final
execution and sale came ahead.

G.R. No. 156076. September 17, 2008.

SPS. JESUS CHING AND LEE POE TIN, Petitioners, vs. SPS. ADOLFO &
ARSENIA ENRILE, Respondents.

Facts:
On September 5, 1985, petitioners purchased from a certain
Raymunda La Fuente a 370-square meter lot located at Barrio
Tungtong, Las Pias and covered by TCT No. 83618. La Fuente
delivered to petitioners a duly notarized Deed of Absolute Sale with
the Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title and thereafter, petitioners
took physical possession of the subject property.
The petitioners did not register it with the Register of Deeds
instead they executed an affidavit of adverse claim which was
recorded and annotated at the back of the title. The petitioners
peacefully and continuously possessed the subject property. Three
years later they received a notice of levy on attachment and Writ of
Execution in favor of respondents. Petitioners then filed a petition to
quiet title to real property. The Regional Trial Court rendered decision
in favor of the petitioners.
The respondents appealed to the CA arguing that the RTC
committed reversible error in ruling that petitioners had a better
right over the disputed property. Respondents theorized that the
prior conveyance of the disputed property made by La Fuente to
petitioners being a voluntary dealing with a registered land, mere
registration of their adverse claim was insufficient. To respondents,
in order to have petitioners interest protected, they should have
registered the Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of Deeds
pursuant to Section 51 of PD 1529 and not merely register an
adverse claim under Section 70 of the same law. Citing the second
paragraph of Section 70 which provides that an adverse claim shall
be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration,
respondents insisted that the annotated Adverse Claim of
petitioners had already expired, hence, it offered no protection when
respondents acquired the disputed property through execution sale.
The CA ruled in favor of the respondents.

Issue:
Whether or not the annotation of the inscription to Entry no.
86-622/T-83618 is a valid adverse claim
Ruling:
Yes. The Court finds that the CA committed reversible error
when it ruled that the annotated adverse claim had already
prescribed by the mere lapse of 30 days from its registration. The
issue is no longer of first impression. In the 1996 case of Sajonas
v. Court of Appeals, we explained that a notice of adverse claim
remains valid even after the lapse of the 30-day period provided
by Section 70 of PD 1529. We held that for as long as there is yet
no petition for its cancellation, the notice of adverse claim
remains subsisting.

The law does not require a person dealing with the owner of registered land
to go beyond the certificate of title as he may rely on the notices of the
encumbrances on the property annotated on the certificate of title or absence of any
annotation. It is a well-settled rule that a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts
which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and then claim that he acted in
good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor.
The Supreme Court quoted the observation of RTC. In derogation to
defendants claim that they have a better right over the questioned property superior
over that of the plaintiffs, the Court has only to carefully examine the face of TCT
No. 83618 and its dorsal part on Memorandum of Encumbrances for entries and
inscriptions in their chronological order of dates of annotation of documents in the
Office of the Register of Deeds. On the title itself it is readily perceived and
palpable that Entry No. 86-62262/T-83618 in reference to the Adverse Claim
executed by plaintiff Jesus Ching was registered way ahead on November 20, 1986
compared to Entries Nos. 3433-2, 3434-2 and 736-3, respectively the Notice of
Levy, Writ of Execution and Certificate of Sale in favor of spouses defendants
Enrile which were duly registered on August 19, 1988 (for the first two documents)
and on March 21, 1989 (for the last document). Perforce, before the registrations
of the three documents purporting to be the rights and interests of defendants in the
property in question, the defendants more particularly and the whole world in
general were given constructive notice that Raymunda La Fuente, the judgment
debtor in Civil Case No. 54617 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, has no more
interest and rights to the property subject of litigation. Defendants should have at

the first instance been duly warned and notified that the property involved in
litigation subject to attachment and levy, execution and sale from actual
registration of the defendants documents referred herein. The annotation of
inscription to Entry No. 86-622/T-83618 is obviously and indeed very clear
indicating that the plaintiffs registered adverse claim in reference to the sale of the
same property sought by defendants to be levied on attachment, final execution and
sale came ahead. This Court is now convinced that the respondents were not
purchasers in good faith.

Period of effectivity of adverse claim. 30 days.

Xxx The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the
adverse claimants residence, and a place at which all notices may be
served upon him. This statement shall be 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
upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest: Provided,
however, That after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the
same ground shall be registered by the same claimant. Xxx
When adverse claim cancelled.
Xxx Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest
may file a petition in the Court of First Instance where the land is situated
for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy
hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall
render judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is
adjudged to be invalid, the registration thereof shall be ordered cancelled.
If, 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. Before the lapse of thirty days, the claimant may
withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn
petition to that effect.
G. R. No. 102377. July 5, 1996

ALFREDO SAJONAS and CONCHITA SAJONAS, petitioners, vs. THE

COURT OF APPEALS, DOMINGO A. PILARES, SHERIFF ROBERTO
GARCIA OF QUEZON CITY and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARIKINA,
respondents.

Facts:
On September 22, 1983, the spouses Ernesto Uychocde and
Lucita Jarin agreed to sell a parcel of residential land located in
Antipolo, Rizal to the spouses Alfredo Sajonas and Conchita R.
Sajonas on installment basis as evidenced by a Contract to Sell
dated September 22, 1983. The property was registered in the
names of the Uychocde spouses under TCT No. N-79073 of the
Register of Deeds of Marikina, Rizal. On August 27, 1984, the
Sajonas couple caused the annotation of an adverse claim based on
the said Contract to Sell on the title of the subject property, which
was inscribed as Entry No. 116017. Upon full payment of the
purchase price, the Uychocdes executed a Deed of Sale involving
the property in question in favor of the Sajonas couple on
September 4, 1984. The deed of absolute sale was registered
almost a year after, or on August 28, 1985.
Meanwhile, it appears that Domingo Pilares (defendantappellant) filed Civil Case No. Q-28850 for collection of sum of
money against Ernesto Uychocde. On June 25, 1980, a Compromise
Agreement was entered into by the parties in the said case under
which Ernesto Uychocde acknowledged his monetary obligation to
Domingo Pilares amounting to P27,800 and agreed to pay the same
in two years from June 25, 1980. When Uychocde failed to comply
with his undertaking in the compromise agreement, defendantappellant Pilares moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to
enforce the decision based on the compromise agreement, which
the court granted in its order dated August 3, 1982. Accordingly, a
writ of execution was issued on August 12, 1982 by the CFI of
Quezon City where the civil case was pending.
When the deed of absolute sale was registered, the original
title was cancelled. However, the execution was carried over the
new title. The petitioners filed a third party complaint which
prevented the auction sale of the property. The trial court rendered
decision in favor of the petitioner and ordered the cancellation of the
notice of levy from the TCT. The CA reversed the decision of the
lower court.
Issue:
Whether or not an adverse claim s ipso facto cancelled after
the lapse of 30 days

Ruling:
No. If the rationale of the law was for the adverse claim to ipso
facto lose force and effect after the lapse of thirty days, then it would not have
been necessary to include the foregoing caveat to clarify and complete the
rule. For then, no adverse claim need be cancelled. If it has been
automatically terminated by mere lapse of time, the law would not have
required the party in interest to do a useless act. The law, taken 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. For if the adverse claim has already
ceased to be effective upon the lapse of said period, its cancellation is no
longer necessary and the process of cancellation would be a useless
ceremony. To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as absolute
and without qualification 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 by the Land Registration Act
or Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves as
a warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming
an interest or the same or a better right than the registered owner thereof.

An adverse claim can subsist concurrently with an annotation of a notice of lis

pendens involving the same right or interest covered by the adverse claim.

G.R. No. L-11271. May 28, 1958

PAZ TY SIN TEI, petitioner-appellee, vs. JOSE LEE DY PIAO, respondentappellant.
Facts:
Dy Lac, a Chinese national, was long before, the effectivity of the
Philippine Constitution, the absolute and registered owner of certain real
properties in Manila. After the death of his wife in China in 1907, by whom he
had a son, Dy Lac contracted a second marriage with Ong Tiem alias Uy Cho,
also a Chinese, whom he, brought in the Philippines in 1920 together with the
latter's maid-servant Gue Kuy alias Paz Ty Sin Tei.
On June 23, 1938, Dy Lac executed a document donating to Paz Ty Sin
Tei two parcels of land together with all the improvements thereon, located at
Ronquillo street and Rizal Avenue known as Lot 8 and 22, Block 2127 of the
Cadastral Survey of Manila, with a combined area of 655.70 square meters
and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 50071 and 50074 registered
in the name of Dy Lac, married to Uy Cho. By reason of said deed, the

aforementioned certificates of title were cancelled and T. C. T. Nos. 53825 and

53826 were issued by the Register of Deeds of Manila in the name of Paz Ty
Sin Tei, single, Chinese. Simultaneously and on the same day, Dy Lac
executed another deed of donation, this time in favor of Tomas Dy Suan
Hoan, Paz Ty Sin Tei's minor illegitimate son, giving him another parcel of land
located at Magallanes and Anda streets, Intramuros, Manila, covered by T. C.
T. No. 50072, in the name of Dy Lac, married to Uy Cho, and in virtue of said
disposition, T. C. T. No. 50072 was cancelled and another title (T. C. T. No.
53925) was issued in the name of the minor Tomas Dy Suan Choan. However,
barely 2 months thereafter, said minor died and the property thus passed to
and was inherited by his mother, who secured a corresponding certificate of
title over the same parcel of land in her favor (T. C. T. No. 56580). At the time
when the donations were made, Dy Lac was said to be the owner of the
following properties.
Dy lac died and was survived by his second wife and his son in the first
marriage. The caused the annotation of an adverse claim over the title and
then a notice of lis pendens during the pendency of the determination thereof
of their rights. The petitioner moved to have the adverse claim cancelled
because it would be unfair to have two remedies to be exercised at the same
time which are annotated to her title.
Issue:
Whether or not an adverse claim can subsist concurrently with an
annotation of lis pendens
Ruling:
Yes. We are inclined to believe, for while both registrations have their
town characteristics and requisites, it cannot be denied that they are both
intended to protect the interest of a claimant by posing as notices and caution
to those dealing with the property that same is subject to a claim. But while a
notice of lis pendens remains during the pendency of the action, although
same may be cancelled under certain circumstances, and it has even been
held that a court, in the absence of a statute, has the inherent power to cancel
a lis pendens notice in a proper case, the same is not true in a registered
adverse claim, for it may be cancelled only in one instance, i.e., after the claim
is adjudged invalid or unmeritorious by the Court, acting either as a land
registration court or one of general jurisdiction while passing upon a case
before it where the subject of the litigation is the same interest or right which is
being secured by the adverse claim. The possibility therefore, that parties
claiming an interest in a registered property desire, for any other purpose, to
have their cause ventilated in a court of general jurisdiction, may result in
giving them two ways of making the registration of their claimed rights. In such
instances, it would not only be unreasonable but also oppressive to hold that
the subsequent institution of an ordinary civil action would work to divest the
adverse claim of its validity, for as We have pointed out, a notice of lis
pendens may be cancelled even before the action is finally terminated for
causes which may not be attributable to the claimant. And it would similarly be

beyond reason to confine a claimant to the remedy afforded by section 110 of

Act 496 if there are other recourses in law which such claimant may avail of.
But, if any of the registrations should be considered unnecessary or
superfluous, it would be the notice of lis pendens and not the annotation of the
adverse claim which is more permanent and cannot be cancelled without
adequate hearing and proper disposition of the claim.
A notice of lis pendens serves the purposes of the adverse claim.
G.R. No. 35205 April 17, 1990IN RE: PETITION FOR THE CANCELLATION
OF ENCUMBRANCE APPEARING IN TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
NO. T-7601 OF DAVAO. NATIVIDAD VILLAFLOR, petitioner-appellee,
vs.JOSE JUEZAN, oppositor-appellant.
Facts:
Appellant registered his affidavit of adverse claim in Transfer Certificate
of Title No. T-1217 (formerly a part of Original Certificate of Title 806) under
primary entry No. 26083 of the Register of Deeds of Davao. Appellant filed
Civil Case 3496 seeking from the defendant therein the surrender of owner's
duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title T-1217 in order that the deed of sale in
favor of the herein appellant will be registered or annotated in the certificate of
title. More than four (4) years after the appellant's adverse claim was
annotated that is, on October 15, 1965 and while case No. 3496 is pending,
the herein appellee presented for registration two (2) deeds of sale affecting
the land subject of the action, the first dated March 21, 1963 conveying
8.6186 hectares and the second dated September 6, 1986 conveying the
remaining 3.0219 hectares and as a consequence, Transfer Certificate of Title
T-1217 was cancelled and in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title T-7601
was issued to the appellee wherein the adverse claim annotated was carried
on. The lower court ordered the cancellation of the adverse claim. The
Petitioner-appellee filed a motion to dismiss appeal in the Court of Appeals on
the ground that the issue involved has become moot and academic, because
oppositor-appellant Jose Juezan filed a notice of lis pendens on the property.
Issue:
Whether or not it is necessary to maintain the adverse claim despite
notice of lis pendens
Ruling:
No. considering that a notice of lis pendens had been annotated on
T.C.T. No. T-7601 of petitioner-appellee, 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 oppositor-appellant's adverse claim at the back of transfer
certificate of title no. T-7601. The notice of lis pendens filed by the oppositorappellant affecting the same property in connection with Civil Case No. 3496
is sufficient. Moreover, in the manifestation that was filed by counsel for

appellant on February 8, 1990, it appears that the related case pending in the
Court of Appeals was terminated thus affirming the decision of the trial court,
and entry of judgment has been made per letter of transmittal dated
November 5, 1975. Consequently, the instant case has been rendered moot
and academic.