FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018
LOURDES VALDERAMA, Petitioner, v. SONIA ARGUELLES AND LORNA ARGUELLES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TIJAM, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Lourdes Valderama (petitioner) assailing the Decision2 dated December 14, 2015 and Resolution3 dated February 24, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 103744. In the said Decision, the CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal of the Resolutions4 dated April 11, 2014 and July 31, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Case No. P-09-499 LRC REC. No. 2400 ordering the cancellation of the Notice of Adverse Claim made as Entry No. 8957/Vol. 132/T-266311, Registry of Deeds of Manila.
From the examination of pleadings between the parties relative to Civil Case No. 13130761, ownership and physical possession are sufficiently made as issues between the parties in the said case. The parties have effectively submitted themselves to the jurisdiction and disposition of the court relative to claims of ownership and possession over the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 266311 of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Manila.Petitioner and Tarcila filed a motion for reconsideration18 but the same was denied in a Resolution19 dated July 31, 2014. Aggrieved, petitioner and Tarcila appealed to the CA raising the lone assignment of error:
While this court is aware of the case of Spouses Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No. 102377 (July 5, 1996), it cannot disregard the pronouncement of the court in Villaflor vs. Juerzan, G.R. No. 35205 (April 17, 1990) which states that a Notice of Lis Pendens between the parties concerning Notice of Adverse Claim calls for the cancellation thereof. Hence, to reconcile with the two cases, this court orders the cancellation of the Adverse Claim in view of the Notice of Lis Pendens annotated on TCT No. 266311. Considering, however, the case between the parties pending before Branch 47, the cancellation brought about by the Notice of Lis Pendens is in no way in determination as to the veracity and substance of the adverse claim. The cancellation does not touch upon the issues of ownership and possession which is the property left to the jurisdiction disposition of Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. If this court will continue with determining the substance of the questioned adverse claim then there is a possibility that two adverse decisions will result. Thus, this court leaves the issues of ownership on possession of the wisdom of Branch 47 of the Manila Regional Trial Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Notice of Adverse Claim made as Entry No. 8957/Vol. 132/T-266311, Registry of Deeds of Manila is ordered CANCELLED. However, the cancellation is not a determination of the veracity and substance of the adverse claim and is not a final determination on the issue of ownership and possession.17 (Emphasis supplied)
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF THE ADVERSE CLAIM CAUSED TO BE ANNOTATED BY THE LATE CONCHITA FRANCIA SIMPLY BECAUSE A NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CA USED TO BE ANNOTATED BY OPPOSITORS APPELLANTS ON TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 26631120
In any case, oppositors-appellants' appeal before this Court has no merit. Oppositors-appellants insist that the RTC erred in ordering the cancellation of the notice of adverse claim annotated at the hack of TCT No. 266311, appearing as Entry No. 8957/Vol. 132.Petitioner and Tarcila moved for reconsideration24 of the CA decision but the same was denied in a Resolution25 dated February 24, 2016.
We do not agree.
In Villaflor vs. Juezan, the Supreme Court pronoun(c)ed:"The principal issue in this appeal is whether or not an adverse claim annotated in a transfer certificate of title may be cancelled when the validity or invalidity of the claim is still subject of inquiry in a civil case pending resolution by the trial court.
x x x x
On February 22, 1961 the 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. The affidavit conformed to the requirements of Section 110, Act 496.
On March 1, 1961, the herein 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.
In Civil Case No. 3496 the defendant's answer raised the issue of validity of the deed of sale in favor of the herein appellant. In fact, trial was had on this issue and the case until the present is pending decision in view of the death of Judge Abbas.
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 (sic) 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.
It is this adverse claim which the appellee seeks to be cancelled in this case.
x x x x
On August 21, 1968, 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 covered by T.C.T. No. T-7601 and in connect ion with Civil Case No. 3496.
The basis of Civil Case No. 3496 is a deed of absolute sale dated July 7, 1956, allegedly executed by Simon Maghanay in favor of 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 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 oppositor-appellant affecting the same property in connection with Civil Case No. 3496 is sufficient.
Moreover, in the manifestation that was tiled by counsel for appellant on February 8, 1990, it appears that the related case pending in the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. No. 43818-R 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.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.23
Simply stated, the core issue to be resolved in this case is whether the subsequent annotation of a notice of lis pendens on a certificate of title renders the case for cancellation of adverse claim on the same title moot and academic.
- Whether the appeal filed before the CA involved a pure question of law;
- Whether the ruling of the Honorable Court in Villaflor vs. Juezan is inapplicable to this case; and
- Whether the adverse claim caused to be annotated by a person on a title may be cancelled merely because another person caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the same title.26
Section 2. Modes of appeal. -Moreover, Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules provide that an appeal to the CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed outright, thus:
(a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where law on these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
(b) Petition for review. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.
(c) Appeal by certiorari. - In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with the Rule 45. (Emphasis Ours)
Section 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. - An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.Applying the foregoing rules, there is no question that an appeal from the RTC to the CA raising only questions of law is an improper appeal which shall be dismissed outright. Thus, We now delve into the issue on whether petitioner's appeal before the CA raised purely questions of law thereby warranting its outright dismissal.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. (Emphasis Ours)
Sec. 110. Whoever claims any right or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Act for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, and a reference to the volume and page of the certificate of title of the registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.Thereafter, P.D. 1529 introduced minor changes in the wordings of the law, as follows:
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant's residence, and designate a place at which all notices may be served upon him. The statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim, and the court, upon a petition of any party in interest, shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim and shall enter such decree therein as justice and equity may require. If the claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration shall be canceled. If in any case the court after notice and hearing shall find that a claim thus registered was frivolous or vexatious, it may tax the adverse claimant double or treble costs in its discretion. (Emphasis Ours)
Sec. 70 Adverse Claim - Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number 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.In the case of Flor Martinez v. Ernesto G. Garcia and Edilberto M. Brua,34 the Court held that:
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 canceled 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.
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 canceled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may tine 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. (Emphasis Ours)
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 No. 496 (now P.D. No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves a warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right than that of the registered owner thereof.35Also, in the case of Teresita Rosal Arrazola v. Pedro A. Bernas and Soledad Bernas Alivio,36 the Court explained:
The purpose of annotating the adverse claim on the title of the disputed land is 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.37As provided under the third paragraph of Section 70 of P.D. 1529:
The validity or efficaciousness of an adverse claim may only be determined by the Court 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 of the adverse claim may be cancelled.38On the other hand, the following Sections of P.D. 1529 govern the rule on annotation as well as cancellation of a notice of lis pendens:
Section 76. Notice of lis pendens. No action to recover possession of real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title thereof, or for partition, or other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the title to land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon, and no judgment, and no proceeding to vacate or reverse any judgment, shall have any effect upon registered land as against persons other than the parties thereto, unless a memorandum or notice stating the institution of such action or proceeding and the court wherein the same is pending, as well as the date of the institution thereof, together with a reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an adequate description of the land affected and the registered owner thereof, shall have been tiled and registered.Jurisprudence further provides in the case of Fernando Carrascoso, Jr. v. The Hon. Court of Appeals39 that:
Section 77. Cancellation of lis pendens. Before final judgment, a notice of lis pendens may be canceled upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be registered. It may also be canceled by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who caused the registration thereof.
At any time after final judgment in favor of the defendant. or other disposition of the action such as to terminate finally all rights of the plaintiff in and to the land and/or buildings involved, in any case in which a memorandum or notice of lis pendens has been registered as provided in the preceding section, the notice of lis pendens shall be deemed canceled upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the manner of disposal thereof. (Emphasis Ours)
The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reason of public policy and necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the judgment or decree shall have been entered otherwise by successive alienations pending the litigation, its judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution.40As distinguished from an adverse claim, the notice of lis pendens is ordinarily recorded without the intervention of the court where the action is pending.41
x x x the action taken by the lower Court in ordering the cancellation of the adverse claim before its validity could he passed upon, is not sanctioned by law.The aforecited rationale of this Court in Ty Sin Tei is more in accordance with the basic tenets of fair play and justice. As previously discussed, 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.49
But We have to give certain consideration to the implication created by the lower court's ruling that the institution of a court action for the purpose of securing or preserving the right which is also the object of an adverse claim invalidates the latter, irrespective of whether a notice of lis pendens has been annotated or not, for such a doctrine gives the impression that the 2 remedies are contradictory or repugnant to one another, the existence of one automatically nullifying the other. We are inclined to believe otherwise, for while both registrations have their own 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 as where the case is prolonged unnecessarily or for failure of the plaintiff to introduce evidence hearing out the allegations of the complaint (Victoriano vs. Rovira, 55 Phil., 1000; Municipal Council of Parañaque vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, 40 Off. Gaz., 8th Supp., 196); 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 (Victoriano vs. Rovira, supra), 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 arc 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.
Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations, the order appealed from directing the Register of Deeds of Manila to cancel the annotation of adverse claim at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 58652, is hereby set aside and appellee's petition for cancellation dismissed, with costs against petitioner-appellee. It is so ordered.48 (Emphasis Ours)
Endnotes:
** Designated as Acting Chairperson pursuant to Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 3-33.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, concurred in by Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes; id. at 35-46.
3 Id. at 48-49.
4 Penned by Judge Jose Lorenzo R. Dela Rosa; id. at 200-201 and 214.
5 Id. at 53-56.
6 Id. at 58-60.
7 Id. at 53-54.
8 Id. at 63-66.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 80-96.
11 Id. at 81-82.
12 Id. at 84-85.
13 Id. at 121-132.
14 Id. at 166-168.
15 Id. at 115-117.
16 Id. at 200-201.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 202-212.
19 Id. at 214.
20 Id. at 221.
21 Id. at 35-46.
22 Id. at 41-43.
23 Id. at 43-45 (citations omitted).
24 Id. at 264-275.
25 Id. at 48-49.
26 Id. at 15.
27 263 Phil. 224 (1990).
28Rollo pp. 15-17.
29Leoncio, et al. v. Vera, et al., 569 Phil. 512 (2008).
30First Bancorp, Inc. v. CA, 525 Phil. 309, 326 (2006).
31Municipality of Pateros v. Hon. CA, et al., 607 Phil. 104, 114 (2009).
32City of Lapu-lapu v. Philippine Economic Zone Authoriry, 748 Phil. 473, 508 (2014).
33 327 Phil. 689 (1996).
34 625 Phil. 377 (2010).
35 Id. at 391-392.
36 175 Phil. 452 (1978).
37 Id. at 456-457.
38Atty. Ferrer v. Spouses Diaz, et al., 633 Phil. 244. 259 (2010).
39 514 Phil. 48 (2005).
40 Id. at 79.
41Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 289, 298 (1997).
42Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 263 Phil. 235, 241 (1990).
43 Id.
44Villaflor, supra note 27.
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 103 Phil. 858 (1958).
48 Id. at 868-869.
49Sajonas vs. CA, 327 Phil. 689, 710 (1996).
50A. Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 241 Phil. 28 (1988).