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
Post a Comment