IN RE: CANCELLATION OF ADVERSE CLAIM IN TCT NO. 112259 OF BENITO CHUA OF THE REGISTRY OF DEED OF QUEZON CITY UNDER ENTRY NO. 442/T-112259, ENITO CHUA, VS. HEIRS OF FRANCISCO K. …
GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, J.:
Petitioner-appellee Benito Chua is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Quezon City with an area of 654.53 sq. meters covered by TCT No. 112259 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.[1]
On July 14, 1994, respondents-appellants Heirs of Francisco Redor, Sr. represented by Francisco Redor, Jr., caused the annotation of an adverse claim on TCT No. 112259 under Entry No. P.E. 4032-T-112259 based on their claim that they are surviving heirs of Francisco Redor, Sr., who had a pending Insular Government Property Sales Application under IGPSA No. 1989(E-1068) over the said parcel of land, which was awaiting final resolution by the Land Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). On August 16, 1994, the adverse claim was canceled.[2]
On August 17, 1994, respondents-appellants caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the same title under Entry no. PE-445/T-112259 in view of a pending case before the RTC of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-94-21348, entitled “Heirs of Francisco K. Redor, namely: Angelita C. Redor, Rolando C. Redor, Mercedita R. Foz, Marietta R. Gregorio, Julieta R. Bautista and Francisco Redor, Jr. herein represented by Francisco Redor, Jr., plaintiffs – versus – Norma D. Bernardo, Carmen Dimaranan, Corazon D. Miranda, Benito Chua, Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Land Registration Authority, Defendants,” where respondents-appellants prayed for annulment of the sale of the subject property between Norma Bernardo and Benito Chua, and cancellation of TCTs issued to Benito Chua, Norma Bernardo and the latter’s mother Valentina Rivera. The complaint in Civil Case No. Q-94-21348 substantially alleged as follows:
“a) The parcel of land, subject of the complaint, is located at Bonifacio Street, Balintawak, Quezon City. The late Francisco Redor, Sr. transferred his rights and interests over this property to his heirs, herein petitioners, represented by Francisco Redor, Jr.;
b) The decedent Redor, Sr. has a pending Insular Government Property Sales Application under IGPSA No. 1989[E-1068] over the land which application is awaiting final resolution by the Land Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR);
c) On or about December 1, 1938, the land, then registered in the name of Eulogio Dimaranan under TCT No. 23810, was ordered forfeited in favor of the then Commonwealth of the Philippines because it was used as a property bail bond in a criminal case where the accused jumped bail;
d) On October 13, 1938, Valentina Rivera, the common-law wife of Eulogio, also filed an IGPSA over the disputed land with the Bureau of Lands but she eventually sold all her rights, interests and participation over the realty in favor of Redor, Sr. and his wife on May 5, 1959;
e) On July 1, 1983, then Ministry of Natural Resources issued an order approving the transfer of rights and interests over the land from Valentina Rivera to Redor, Sr.;
f) On October 3, 1986, upon petition of the Director of Lands thru the Office of the Solicitor General, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 83, ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No. 23810 in the name of Eulogio Dimaranan and in lieu thereof to issue transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines;
g) Despite the order, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City never issued a title in the name of the Republic;
h) On December 8, 1993, when the IGPSA No. 1989 of Redor, Sr. was about to be approved, the heirs of Eulogio and Valentina Rivera Dimaranan belatedly filed a protest against the application;
I) Subsequently, on a chance verification with the Quezon City Register of Deeds, Redor, Jr. discovered that on March 9, 1994, Valentina Rivera, thru Norma Dimaranan Bernardo filed a fraudulent petition for reconstitution of title with the Land Registration Authority (LRA), attaching therewith an expertly falsified TCT No. 143840 allegedly in the name of Valentina Rivera. The petition for reconstitution claimed that the original copy of TCT No. 143840 in the name of Valentina Rivera was lost/destroyed in the fire which gutted the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on June 11, 1988;
j) Barely six (6) days later from the date of filing of the petition for reconstitution or on March 15, 1994, the LRA issued an order directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to reconstitute TCT No. 143840. As a result, the old title (TCT No. 143840) was cancelled and in lieu thereof a reconstituted title, TCT No. RT-143840 was issued by the Register of Deeds on April 8, 1994; and
k) On May 12, 1994, a Deed of Sale, allegedly executed by Valentina Rivera in favor of her daughter Norma Bernardo, was registered and annotated at the back of TCT No. RT-143840. Thus, the fraudulent reconstituted title was cancelled and TCT No. 107925, now in the name of Norma Bernardo, was issued by the Register of Deeds. Norma Bernardo then sold the disputed land to Benito Chua, the latter being fully aware that the land he purchased was the subject of a pending IGPSA. A new TCT No. 112259 was issued in his name.”
In that case, Norma Bernardo, Corazon Miranda and petitioner-appellee Benito Chua filed a joint motion to dismiss on grounds that the complaint stated no cause of action because the subject land was not part of public domain; and that respondents-appellants failed to establish their ownership over the same. Petitioner-appellee Benito Chua also contended that respondents-appellants were not real parties in interest as they had no vested right over the subject property; and that he was a buyer of the property in good faith. The RTC granted the said motion and dismissed the complaint holding that Redor Sr.’s IGPSA was still awaiting resolution by the DENR, thus, his right over the subject property neither ripened into a vested right nor bestowed title upon respondents-appellants in order to qualify them as real parties in interest in the case. The RTC decision in Civil Case No. Q-94-21348 was sustained by the Court of Appeals. On January 31, 2000, the Supreme Court issued a decision in G.R. No. 132068 affirming both the RTC and Court of Appeals and holding as follows:
xxx We are in full agreement with the appellate court that petitioners have not established their ownership or any vested right over the disputed land as to cloth them with the legal capacity to institute the action for cancellation of titles. The averment in the complaint that the late Francisco Redor, Sr. merely had a pending IGPSA clearly shows that the deceased had acquired no title over the land in question which he could validly transmit to his heirs. The inescapable conclusion therefore is that petitioners, as heirs of Redor, Sr., also did not acquire any vested right over the property. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, if there is anyone whose right was affected by the sale between Benito Chua and Norma Bernardo, it is the Republic of the Philippines. As earlier noted, the disputed land was forfeited in favor of the Government when the same was used as a property bond in a criminal case where the accused jumped bail.
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.”[3]
By virtue of the Supreme Court decision dated January 31, 2000 in G.R. No. 132068, Entry No. 2839/T-112259 was annotated on TCT No. 112259 on February 14, 2001 effectively canceling the notice of lis pendens under Entry No. PE-445/T-112259.[4]
On June 26, 2002, another notice of adverse claim was annotated on petitioner-appellee’s title under Entry No. 4427/T-112259. The adverse claim was based on respondents-appellants’ alleged rights and interests over the subject property under IGPSA No. 1989 (E-10680) of Redor Sr.[5]
On September 1, 2003, petitioner-appellee through counsel, wrote to the Register of Deeds of Quezon City requesting that the adverse claim annotated as Entry No. 4427/T-112259 in his title be administratively cancelled.[6] When the request was ignored, petitioner-appellee filed a petition on September 24, 2003 for cancellation of the second adverse claim against respondents-appellants and the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City alleging that: 1) The second notice of adverse claim was invalid as it was a repetition of the previous adverse claim annotated on July 14, 1994 under Entry No. 4032/T-112259; 2) The issue regarding respondents-appellants’ alleged claim was already settled by the Supreme Court in the decision dated January 31, 2000 in G.R. No. 132068 ruling that respondents-appellants did not acquire any vested right from Redor, Sr. or his IGPSA over the subject property; 3) The adverse claim under Entry No. 4427/T-112259 (June 26, 2002) was only effective for a period of 30 days; and 4) Respondents-appellants have not commenced any action against petitioner-appellee to assert or prosecute their alleged adverse claim over the property. Petitioner-appellee prayed that Entry No. 4427/T-112259 be declared invalid; that the Register of Deeds of Quezon City be directed to cancel the said annotation in TCT No. T-112259; and that respondents-appellants be ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees.[7]
In their opposition, respondents-appellants contended that the second adverse claim or Entry No. 4427/T-112259 was annotated on account of a pending criminal case docketed as I.S. No. 01-3077 where the city prosecutor of Quezon City issued a resolution dated June 18, 2001 recommending the filing of an information to charge petitioner-appellee’s predecessors-in-interest Norma Dimaranan Bernardo with falsification of public documents by private individuals under Art. 172 (1) and 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code;[8] that the charges of falsification involved the titles fraudulently issued over the subject property; and that the Office of the Solicitor General had already undertaken initial steps to file a case for reversion of the subject parcel of land to the public domain against petitioner-appellee’s predecessors-in-interest.[9] Respondents-appellants also contended that IGPSA No. 1989 (E-1068) was awarded to Valentina Rivera on May 2, 1941, and that Francisco Redor, Sr. acquired legal rights over the property by virtue of the order dated July 1, 1989 of the then Ministry of Natural Resources approving the transfer of sales rights from Valentina Rivera to Francisco Redor, Sr.[10] Respondents-appellants argued that the aforementioned criminal case rendered the issuance of TCT No. 95848 RT(143840) in the name of Valentina Rivera and its derivative title TCT No. 112259 in the name of petitioner-appellee tainted with fraud, thus, the adverse claim under Entry No. 442/T-112259 was a valid measure to protect respondents-appellants’ interest over the subject property pending final determination of the genuineness of petitioner-appellee’s title.[11]
On November 15, 2005, the RTC of Quezon City issued the appealed order in LRC Case No. Q-17070(03) directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel the adverse claim under Entry No. 4427/T-112259 in petitioner-appellee’s title or TCT No. 112259. In its order, the RTC took note of the previous adverse claim in TCT No. 112259 under Entry No. P.E. 4032-T-112259 dated July 14, 1994, which was cancelled on August 16, 1994 under Entry No. 212/T-No. 112259, thus, it held that respondents-appellants were precluded from registering a second adverse claim because of their failure to prove any vested right or claim of ownership over the disputed property with sufficient evidence. Further, the RTC also anchored its ruling on the decision of the Supreme Court dated January 31, 2000 in G.R. No. 132068 affirming the dismissal of respondents-appellants’ complaint for cancellation of title and annulment of sale.[12]
On December 15, 2005, respondents-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dated November 15, 2005, however, the RTC denied their motion in the order dated April 28, 2006.[13] On June 13, 2006, respondents-appellants filed a notice of appeal.[14] On June 15, 2006, the RTC issued an order denying due course to the notice of appeal for having been filed out of time.[15] On August 3, 2006, the RTC also denied respondents-appellants’ motion for reconsideration of the order dated June 15, 2006.[16] Thereafter, respondents-appellants filed a petition for certiorari with this Court to assail the orders dated June 16, 2006 and August 3, 2006 of the RTC. On September 28, 2007, this Court’s Third Division rendered a decision in CA G.R. SP No. 96543 granting the petition for certiorari and setting aside the assailed orders of the RTC.[17] On October 25, 2007, the said decision attained finality.[18]
In this appeal, respondents-appellants assign the following errors on the RTC:
I.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS HAVE ACQUIRED ANY VESTED RIGHT OVER SAID PROPERTY SUBJECT OF THE ADVERSE CLAIM; and,
II.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM REGISTERING A SECOND ADVERSE CLAIM.[19]
The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves a warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right than that of the registered owner thereof. Such notice is registered by filing a sworn statement with the Register of Deeds of the province where the property is located, setting forth the basis of the claimed right together with other dates pertinent thereto.[20]
The registration of an adverse claim is expressly recognized under Sec. 70 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit:
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 registration, 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 certificates or title 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 the said period, the annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefore 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 claims thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in the 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.
The annotation of an adverse claim over registered land requires a claim on the title of the disputed land. In this case, the RTC was correct in directing the cancellation of the notice of adverse claim, holding that respondents-appellants do not have a valid claim of ownership over the subject property. The issue on the matter was already settled with finality by the Supreme Court in its decision dated January 31, 2000 in G.R. No. 132068 holding that as early as December 1, 1938, the property, then registered in the name of Eulogio Dimaranan under TCT No. 23810 was forfeited in favor of the Government when the accused, who used it as a property bail bond in Criminal Case No. 50615, jumped bail; and that Francisco Redor, Sr. acquired no title over the land under the IGPSA No. 1989 (E-1068) which he could validly transmit to respondents-appellants. It has been ruled that the validity or efficaciousness of a claim may only be determined by the trial court upon petition by an interested party, in which event, it shall order the immediate hearing thereof and make the proper adjudication as justice and equity may warrant. The hearing affords the parties an opportunity to prove the propriety or impropriety of the adverse claim. Further, it is only when such claim is found invalid or unmeritorious that the registration of the adverse claim may be ordered cancelled.[21] Considering therefore that respondents-appellants failed to sustain or prove their interest in the property, they are precluded from registering the second adverse claim based on the same ground.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The order dated November 15, 2005 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in LRC Case No. Q-17070 (03) is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Tijam, N. G., Chairperson, and Lopez, M. V., JJ., concur.
[1] Record, pp. 7-8.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Id. at pp. 9-12.
[4] Id. at p. 8.
[5] Id. at pp. 41-42.
[6] Id. at pp. 43-44.
[7] Id. at pp. 1-6.
[8] Id. at pp. 62-64.
[9] Id. at pp. 57-61.
[10] Id. at p. 119.
[11] Id. at pp. 104-113.
[12] Id. at pp. 133-135.
[13] Id. at pp. 139-145; pp, 160-162.
[14] Id. at pp. 182-183.
[15] Id. at pp. 187-188.
[16] Id. at pp. 214-217; pp. 224-229.
[17] Id. at pp. 234-240.
[18] Id. at p. 248.
[19] Rollo, pp. 15-28.
[20] Sajonas, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Domingo Pilares, et al., G. R. No. 102377, July 05, 1996.
[21] Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. vs. Sps. Desiderio & Edarlina Frogozo and Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 128563, March 25, 2004 .