VALDERAMA vs. ARGUELLES

 

LOURDES VALDERAMA, petitioner v. SONIA ARGUELLES and LORNA ARGUELLES, respondents

G.R. No. 223660 | April 2, 2018

FACTS

On December 11, 2009, Sonia and Lorna Arguelles (respondents) filed a petition to cancel adverse claim involving a parcel of land covered by TCT 266311. They alleged that on Nov 18, 2004, Conchita Francia, who was the registered owner of the land of 1000 sqm 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.

On November 14, 2007, Conchita filed an affidavit of adverse claim. On Jan 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.

On February 10, 2010, petitioner and Tarcila Lopez, 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. They also argued that the sale of the subject property to the respondents was simulated as evidenced by the ff:

a.    Conchita had continuous physical and legal possession over the subject property

b.    Conchita was the one paying for the real estate taxes for the subject property

c.     Conchita had in her possession, up to the time of her death, the Owner’s Duplicate Copy of the TCT.

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 issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction against petitioner and Tarcila.

In light of respondent’s complaint, petitioner and Tarcila filed a notice of lis pendens with respect to the TCT on Oct 22, 2013. On the other hand, respondents filed a manifestation and motion praying for the outright cancellation of the adverse claim annotated on the TCT on the ground that petitioner’s subsequent filing of notice of lis pendens rendered the issue moot and academic.

RTC issued a Resolution ordering the cancellation of the adverse claim. Subsequently, CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit. The CA held that the issue on cancellation of adverse claim is a question of law since its resolution would not involve an examination of the evidence but only an application of the law on a particular set of facts. Petitioner and Tarcila moved for reconsideration but was denied hence the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not 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.

 

RULING

No, a subsequent annotation of a notice of lis pendens on a certificate of title does not necessarily render a petition for cancellation of adverse claim on the same title moot and academic.

An adverse claim and a notice of lis pendens under PD 1529

are not of the same nature and do not serve the same purpose.

As distinguished from an adverse claim, the notice of lis pendens is ordinarily recorded without the intervention of the court where the action is pending.

Moreover, a notice of lis pendens neither affects the merits of a case nor creates a right or a lien. The notice is but an extrajudicial incident in an action. It is intended merely to constructively advise, or warn, all people who deal with the property that they so deal with it at their own risk, and whatever rights they may acquire in the property in any voluntary transaction are subject to the results of the action. Corollarily, unlike the rule in adverse claims, the cancellation of a notice lis pendens is also a mere incident in the action, and may be ordered by the Court having jurisdiction of it at any given time. Its continuance or removal is not contingent on the existence of a final judgment in the action, and ordinarily has no effect on the merits thereof.

Given the foregoing, the law and jurisprudence provide clear distinctions between an annotation of an adverse claim, on one hand, and an annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the other.

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.

A subsequent annotation of a notice of lis pendens on a certificate of title does not necessarily render a petition for cancellation of adverse claim on the same title moot and academic.

At the crux of the present controversy is this Court's ruling in the case of Villaflor. In the said case, the appellant registered his affidavit of adverse claim on a certificate of title in order that the deed of sale in his favor will be registered or annotated in the same certificate. In the civil case, defendant raised the issue of validity of the deed of sale in favor of appellant. More than 4 years after and while the civil case was pending, the appellee sought to cancel the annotation of the adverse claim. The lower court first ordered its cancellation, then reconsidered and finally returned to its original stand. This Court ruled in Villaflor that the case has been rendered moot and academic.

Admittedly, the present case involves the same issue resolved by this Court in Villaflor. However, the Villaflor ruling stemmed from a different factual milieu. As pointed out by the petitioner, in the case at bar, the respondents are the ones who filed the case subject of the notice of lis pendens. Further, the ruling in Villaflor specifically highlighted the fact that the related civil case was already terminated and attained finality. Here, the civil case filed by the respondents is still pending before the RTC.

The ruling of this Court in the case of Ty Sin Tei v. Dy Piao is applicable in this case

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.

Given the different attributes and characteristics of an adverse claim vis-a-vis a notice of lis pendens, this Court is led to no other conclusion but that the said two remedies may be availed of at the same time

 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions 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 are hereby SET ASIDE and respondents Sonia Arguelles and Lorna Arguelles's petition for cancellation DISMISSED.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CIR v. DLSU

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC

CIR v. PAGCOR