View full case

LOURDES VALDERAMA v. SONIA ARGUELLES

FACTS:

Sonia Arguelles and Lorna Arguelles filed a petition to cancel an adverse claim on a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 266311. They claimed to have acquired the property through an absolute deed of sale executed by the registered owner, Conchita Amongo Francia. Conchita's heirs, Lourdes Valderama and Tarcila Lopez, opposed the petition and argued that they inherited Conchita's claims and rights to the property upon her death. They also alleged that the sale to the respondents was simulated. While the petition to cancel the adverse claim was pending, respondents filed a separate complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of the property. Petitioner and Tarcila filed a notice of lis pendens on the TCT in response. Respondents then filed a motion for cancellation of the adverse claim, citing the filing of the notice of lis pendens. The RTC granted the motion, but clarified that it did not resolve the ownership and possession issues. Petitioner and Tarcila's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to appeal to the CA.

The CA dismissed petitioner's appeal, stating that it raised a question of law. The CA upheld the RTC's cancellation of the adverse claim, citing the case of Villaflor vs. Juezan. Petitioner and co-petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the nature of the appeal, the applicability of the Villaflor vs. Juezan case, and the cancellation of the adverse claim.

Petitioner filed an appeal before the CA seeking the reversal of the RTC's decision in Civil Case No. 13130761, which dealt with the cancellation of the adverse claim. The CA dismissed the appeal, stating that it raised only questions of law. Petitioner argues that the CA should have considered the evidence on record and examined the surrounding circumstances. Petitioner then filed a petition before the Supreme Court appealing the CA's dismissal of the appeal, albeit beyond the reglementary period provided by law. The Supreme Court now considers whether to relax the rules and take cognizance of the petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for being an improper appeal.

  2. Whether the doctrine in Villaflor v. Juezan is applicable to the present case.

  3. What is the difference between an adverse claim and a notice of lis pendens?

  4. How can an adverse claim be cancelled?

  5. How can a notice of lis pendens be cancelled?

  6. Whether annotations of an adverse claim and a notice of lis pendens on the same certificate of title automatically render a petition for cancellation of adverse claim moot and academic.

  7. Whether the ruling in the Villaflor case, which held that the petition for cancellation of adverse claim is moot and academic due to the termination of the related civil case, is applicable to the present case where the civil case is still pending.

  8. Whether a notice of lis pendens and an adverse claim can be availed of at the same time.

  9. Whether the cancellation of an adverse claim is necessary to render it ineffective.

RULING:

  1. The CA did not err in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for being an improper appeal. The proper mode of appeal is an appeal by certiorari before the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45. The petitioner filed the present petition before the Supreme Court well beyond the reglementary period provided by law.

  2. The doctrine in Villaflor v. Juezan is not applicable in this case. The Supreme Court ruled that there is a need to reconcile the cases of Villaflor v. Juezan and Sajonas v. CA. Hence, it is an opportune time for the Supreme Court to revisit the cases decided delving on the issue before them.

  3. 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.

  4. An adverse claim can only be cancelled upon filing a petition before the court, which shall conduct a hearing on its validity.

  5. A notice of lis pendens can be cancelled either by the court where the action is pending or by the Register of Deeds upon a verified petition of the party who caused the registration.

  6. No, annotations of an adverse claim and a notice of lis pendens on the same certificate of title do not automatically render a petition for cancellation of adverse claim moot and academic. The termination of the related case subject of the notice of lis pendens was a material factor in considering the petition for cancellation of adverse claim moot and academic in the Villaflor case. Thus, the ruling in Villaflor is not applicable if the same factual circumstances are not present.

  7. Yes, the ruling in the case of Paz Ty Sin Tei v. Jose Lee Dy Piao is applicable in the present case. In Ty Sin Tei, this Court held that the institution of an action and the corresponding annotation of a notice of lis pendens does not invalidate a prior notation of an adverse claim on the same title. Both annotations serve to protect the interest of the claimant and are not contradictory or repugnant to each other. While a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled under certain circumstances, a registered adverse claim may only be cancelled when it is adjudged invalid or unmeritorious by the court. Thus, the cancellation of an adverse claim cannot be ordered before its validity is passed upon by the court.

  8. Yes, a notice of lis pendens and an adverse claim can be availed of at the same time. The two remedies are not contradictory to one another.

  9. Yes, the cancellation of an adverse claim is necessary to render it ineffective. An adverse claim constitutes a lien on a property and it cannot be cancelled without a court hearing.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An appellate court may resolve the issue on what law or ruling is applicable without examining the probative value of the evidence before it, given an undisputed set of facts.

  • The determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or both questions of law and fact is best left to the appellate court, and all doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of the appellate court will be resolved in favor of the CA unless it commits an error or commits a grave abuse of discretion.

  • Failure to perfect an appeal within the period provided by law renders the appealed judgment or order final and immutable, unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the relaxation of the rules in the interest of justice.

  • An adverse claim and a notice of lis pendens under P.D. 1529 are not of the same nature and do not serve the same purpose.

  • The remedy of annotation of an adverse claim was introduced under Act 496 or the Land Registration Act, and later minor changes were introduced by P.D. 1529.

  • The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property, serving as a warning to third parties that someone is claiming an interest in the same or a better right than that of the registered owner. (Flor Martinez v. Ernesto G. Garcia and Edilberto M. Brua)

  • An adverse claim must be determined by the court upon petition by an interested party, and only when such claim is found unmeritorious can the registration of the adverse claim be cancelled. (P.D. 1529)

  • A notice of lis pendens is intended to constructively advise or warn all people dealing with the property that they do so at their own risk, subject to the results of the action. (Fernando Carrascoso, Jr. v. The Hon. Court of Appeals)

  • The cancellation of a notice of lis pendens can be ordered by the court at any time, even before the existence of a final judgment in the action. (P.D. 1529)

  • Annotations of an adverse claim and a notice of lis pendens on the same certificate of title do not automatically render a petition for cancellation of adverse claim moot and academic.

  • The termination of the related case subject of a notice of lis pendens is a material factor in considering the petition for cancellation of adverse claim moot and academic.

  • A registered adverse claim may only be cancelled when it is adjudged invalid or unmeritorious by the court.

  • The cancellation of an adverse claim is necessary to render it ineffective. It constitutes a lien on a property and cannot be cancelled without a court hearing.

  • A notice of lis pendens and an adverse claim can be availed of at the same time. They are not contradictory to one another.