SPOUSES MARYLINE R. GAMBOA AND BERSAMIN C. GAMBOA, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, V. ELENITA Y. NERI AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
ELBINIAS, J.:
dated June 9, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City,
Pampanga, Branch 42 (“lower court” for brevity) in CAD Case No. 2067 for
“Cancellation of Adverse Claim and Damages.”[3]
The salient facts are those as stated in the lower court’s assailed Resolution[4] dated June 9, 2010, as follows:
“The Petitioners Spouses MARYLINE R. GAMBOA and BERSAMIN C. GAMBOA (petitioners-appellants here), xxx, filed the Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim and Damages which the Court received on August 12, 2009.
Named Respondents were:
ELENITA Y. NERI, single, Filipino, of legal age and a resident of 1513 Jesus St., Brgy. Pulungbulo, Angeles City; and
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA as the nominal party.
It was alleged that Transfer Certificate of Title Nos.
460051-R and 467706-R were transferred and registered in favor of the
Plaintiff through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 3, 2003.However, Respondent ELENITA Y. NERI (respondent-appellee here) caused the annotation therein of an Adverse Claim, to wit:
‘a. That said properties were never sold, transferred and conveyed in favor of the petitioners;
‘b. That the signatures appearing on the Deed of Absolute
Sale purporting to be the respondent’s signatures were forged and/or
falsified;‘c. That respondent does not know the petitioners, neither
did she transact with them with respect to the subject properties; and‘d. That respondent did not appear and acknowledge the Deed of Absolute Sale before Notary Public Reyes D. Manalo.’
x x x
It was alleged further by Petitioner that the annotation was frivolous, among others xxx.
Finding the Petition to be sufficient in form and substance,
this Court, in an Order dated August 14, 2009, set the same for hearing
on, September 21, 2009 at 10:00 in the morning at the Session Hall of
this Court. xxx”[5] (Emphasis supplied; Italics made in the original)
On June 9, 2010, the lower court issued its assailed Resolution[6]
denying petitioners-appellants Spouses Maryline Gamboa and Bersamin
Gamboa’s (“petitioners-appellants” for brevity) Petition for
Cancellation of Adverse Claim. The dispositive portion of the Resolution
stated:
“PREMISES GIVEN, the Court orders the following:
I. The following as prayed for by Petitioner SPOUSES MARYLINE R. GAMBOA and BERSAMIN C. GAMBOA are ordered DENIED:
‘1. Directing the respondent Registry of Deeds for the
Province of Pampanga to cancel the Notice of Adverse Claim filed by
respondent Elenita Y. Neri, annotated/entered at the dorsal portion of
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 535888-R and 535889-R, respectively;‘2. Ordering the respondents to pay, jointly and
severally, the amount of P30,000.00 as and by way of acceptance fee of
the undersigned counsel, plus P2,500.00 as appearance fee per hearing of
this case; and,‘3. If the adverse claim is found invalid, frivolous or
vexatious, ordering the respondent Neri to pay a fine as the court may
determine;‘4. Costs of suit[.’]
x x x
II. Cadastral Case No. 2067 is ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.”[7] (Emphasis and Italics made in the original)
As a result, petitioners-appellants filed the instant Appeal,[8] praying that:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
of unto this Honorable Court of Appeals that the findings of the lower
court in dismissing the Petition for Cancellation of the Notice of
Adverse Claim filed by herein petitioners-appellants be REVERSED and/or
SET ASIDE, and that new judgment be issued by granting the cancellation
of the notice of adverse claim.Petitioners-appellants further pray for such other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable under the premises.”[9]
Petitioners-appellants raised the following assignment of errors:
“I. WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT IS (sic) ERRED IN DENYING THE
PETITION FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM ANNOTATED
AT THE DORSAL PORTION OF TCT NOS. 535888-R AND 535889-R ISSUED BY THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA IN FAVOR OF THE HEREIN
PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS;II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 51 OF PD 1529;
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE HEREIN PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS HAVE VALID
CAUSE OF ACTION IN FILING THIS PETITION FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE
NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM ANNOTATED BY RESPONDENT-APPELLEE ELENITA Y.
NERI.”[10]
Despite the failure of respondent-appellee to file her Appellee’s
Brief, it is nevertheless Our “primary duty to render or dispense
justice”[11] in this case in accordance with the facts and law.
As correctly argued by petitioners-appellants in their assigned error I, the lower court erred in not cancelling respondent-appellee’s Adverse Claim on petitioners-appellants’ titles.
In denying petitioners-appellants’ Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim on their titles, the lower court concluded that:
“The Court observed, that, the alleged conveyance, ie the Deed
of Absolute Sale between the herein Petitioners and Respondent ELENITA
Y. NERI, was not registered in the Register of Deeds as prescribed by
Section 51 of PD 1529. Instead, the alleged Seller, ELENITA Y. NERI
caused the annotation of the Adverse Claim recorded and annotated at the
back of TCT No. 535888-R and TCT No. 535889-R.
xxx
While the presence of the Respondent ELENITA Y. NERI was not
required, clearly, the resolution of the Petitioner’s Motion could not
be granted without Respondent ELENITA Y. NERI’s participation, and
moreso, with her manifest adverse stand. xxxLikewise, ELENITA Y. NERI was not presented to identify the
alleged DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE which was marked as Exhibit G and G-1.For this reason, the cancellation of the adverse claim is not allowed by the Court.”[12]
Defeating lower court’s findings however, is that as the records records revealed, the Deed of Absolute Sale[13]
dated April 3, 2003 executed between respondent-appellee as the seller,
and petitioners-appellants as the buyers, was registered in the
Register of Deeds of Pampanga.[14] Such registration justified the cancellation of respondent-appellee’s Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 467706-R[15] and 460051-R[16]
covering the properties sold by respondent-appellee to
petitioners-appellants (“subject properties” for brevity), and the
subsequent issuance of TCT Nos. 535888-R and 535889-R (“new titles” for
brevity) in favor of petitioners-appellants.
In fact, respondent-appellee’s TCT Nos. 467706-R[17] and 460051-R[18]
reflected the sale of the subject properties by respondent-appellee to
petitioners-appellants, which sale therefore justified the cancellation
of respondent-appellee’s titles and the issuance of new titles in favor
of petitioners-appellants. The TCT’s having shown such sale was revealed
by the following entries made by the Register of Deeds of Pampanga:
“Transfer Certificate of Title No. 467706-R
xxx
Entry No. 992-Vol.81-T:4:00 p.m.- SALE in favor of
MARYLINE R. GAMBOA, married to Bersamin C. Gamboa, Affecting the lot
herein described and that in T-460051-R for the sum of P200,000.00 as
per Doc. No.125; Page No. 26; Bk. No. XIV Series of 2003 of N.P. R.
Manalom[.] Wherefore this title is canceled issuing in lieu thereof T-535889-R, Bk. No. 2676.Date of Doc. April 3, 2003
Date of Incs. Apr[il] 14, 2003[.]”[19] (Emphasis supplied)
“Transfer Certificate of Title No. 460051-R
xxx
[Entry No.] 992-[V]ol.81-T:4:00 p.m.- SALE in favor of
MARYLINE R. GAMBOA, married to Bersamin C. Gamboa, The lot herein
described is included in the annotation of sale inscribed at the back of
T-467706-R for the sum of P200,000.00. Wherefore this title is canceled issuing in lieu thereof T-535888-R.Date of Doc. Apr[il] 3, 2003
Date of Incs. Apr[il] 14, 2003[.]”[20] (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, petitioners-appellants’ registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale[21] meant that petitioners-appellants had complied, as petitioners-appellants’ correctly argued in their assigned error II, with the requirement under Section 51 of Presidential Decree 1529 (P.D. 1529), which provides:
“Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. An
owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or
otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He may
use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary
instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease, or
other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect
registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but
shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of
authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned, and in
all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the
office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land
lies.” (Emphasis supplied; Italics made in the original)
Moreover, petitioners-appellants were able to prove that they were
buyers of the subject properties in good faith, and that they were
therefore entitled to the cancellation of the Adverse Claims annotated
in their titles. This, petitioners-appellants did by having presented in
evidence several documents showing that petitioners-appellants had
verified the authenticity and genuineness of respondent-appellee’s title
before they purchased the property from respondent-appellee. These
documents, which were testified to by petitioner-appellant Maryline
Gamboa, were as follows: TCT Nos. 467706-R[22] and 460051-R[23] with annotations; the Deed of Absolute Sale[24] dated April 3, 2003; TCT Nos. 535888-R[25] and 535889-R[26] issued by the Register of Deeds in favor of petitioners-appellants; Tax Declarations[27] in the name of petitioners-appellants declaring them as the owners of the properties; Certification[28]
of the Notary Public Reyes D. Manalo showing that there was a valid
Deed of Absolute Sale between petitioners-appellants and
respondent-appellee.
On the other hand, respondent-appellee failed to defend the
validity of her adverse claim on petitioners-appellants’ titles by her
failure to appear, despite due notice[29], on any of the scheduled hearings of petitioners-appellants’ Petition for “Cancellation of Adverse Claim and Damages.”[30]
Given all these, petitioners-appellants proved their cause of
action to seek the cancellation of respondent-appellee’s Adverse Claim
on petitioners-appellants’ titles, as was correctly argued by
petitioners-appellants in their assigned error III.
That
a party, such as petitioners-appellants here, could cause the
Cancellation of Adverse Claim on his or her title upon compliance with
the requirements for such cancellation, as was done by
petitioners-appellants, is pursuant to this declaration of the Supreme
Court in Torbella, et al. v. Spouses Rosario, et al., G.R. Nos. 140528 and 140553, December 7, 2011:
“With the enactment of the Property Registration Decree on June 11, 1978, Section 70 thereof now applies to adverse claims:
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 registrations, 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 the
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.The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the
adverse claimant’s 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 cancelled 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 cancelled. If, in any case, the
court, after notice and hearing, shall find that the adverse claim thus
registered was frivolous, it may fine 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.
xxx
The reason why the law provides for a hearing where the
validity of the adverse claim is to be threshed out is to afford the
adverse claimant an opportunity to be heard, providing a venue where the
propriety of his claimed interest can be established or revoked, all
for the purpose of determining at last the existence of any encumbrance
on the title arising from such adverse claim. xxxShould the adverse claimant fail to sustain his interest
in the property, the adverse claimant will be precluded from
registering a second adverse claim based on the same ground.It was held that ‘validity or efficaciousness of the
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, thereby
protecting the interest of the adverse claimant and giving notice and
warning to third parties.’Whether under Section 110 of the Land Registration Act
or Section 70 of the Property Registration Decree, notice of adverse
claim can only be cancelled after a party in interest files a petition
for cancellation before the RTC wherein the property is located, and the
RTC conducts a hearing and determines the said claim to be invalid or
unmeritorious.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, after careful consideration of all the facts, arguments, and
issues appearing on the records, as well as of the pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, and in accordance with what is best determined to be
proper under the circumstances, the following disposition is made on
these matters.
BECAUSE OF ALL THESE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the lower court is SET ASIDE and REVERSED.
A new one is entered ORDERING the Register of Deeds of Pampanga to
cancel respondent-appellee’s Adverse Claim on TCT Nos. 535888-R and
535889-R.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican (Chairperson) and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 20-36.
[2] Records, pp. 88-98.
[3] Records, pp. 2-7.
[4] Records, 88-98.
[5] Records, pp. 88-89.
[6] Records, pp. 88-98.
[7] Records, p. 97.
[8] Rollo, pp. 20-36.
[9] Rollo, p. 33.
[10] Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[11] Paz Reyes Aguam vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 137672, May 31, 2000.
[12] Records, pp. 96-97.
[13] Records, pp. 10-11.
[14] Records, pp. 8-9.
[15] Records, p. 9.
[16] Records, p. 8.
[17] Records, p. 9.
[18] Records, p. 8.
[19] Records, p. 9 (back).
[20] Records, p. 8 (back).
[21] Records, pp. 10-11.
[22] Records, p. 9
[23] Records, p. 8
[24] Records, pp. 10-11
[25] Records, p. 12
[26] Records, p. 14
[27] Records, p. 13, pp. 15-16
[28] Records, p. 82
[29] Records, p. 25.
[30] Records, pp. 2-7.