FACTS:

The petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Las Piñas City, while the respondent is the owner of the adjacent property. There is a concrete fence dividing the two properties. The respondent caused the annotation of an adverse claim on a portion of the petitioner's property, asserting the existing legal easement of lateral and subjacent support. The respondent also filed a complaint for malicious mischief and malicious destruction. In response, the petitioner filed a complaint for damages and sought the cancellation of the adverse claim. Prior to the filing of the case, there were deposits of soil and rocks in front of the petitioner's house, preventing her from parking her vehicle. The petitioner hired construction workers to investigate the leak in her house, but the workers were stopped by police officers sent by the respondent. The petitioner claimed that she bought the property without any annotation or existence of an easement. The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the land elevation of the petitioner's property was lowered due to excavation by the developer. The trial court ordered the cancellation of the adverse claim and awarded moral damages to the petitioner, but dismissed the claim for actual damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, and the respondent's counterclaim. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ordering the retention of the annotation as a recognition of the existence of a legal easement.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the adverse claim filed by the respondent should be cancelled.

2. Whether the respondent should be held liable for damages.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals held that the adverse claim should not be cancelled. Instead, it should be retained as a recognition of the existence of a legal easement of subjacent and lateral support. The adverse claim failed to comply with the requisites under Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, but it still serves as an evidence of the respondent's claim for an easement.

2. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision ordering the respondent to pay the petitioner moral damages. The CA found no basis for the award of damages as the adverse claim was filed to protect the respondent's property from collapsing and not to cause harm to the petitioner.

PRINCIPLES:

• An adverse claim should comply with the requisites provided under Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 to be considered registrable.

• An adverse claim serves as evidence of an adverse interest or claim but does not necessarily give rise to a cause of action for damages.