[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018 Valderama V Arguelles (Angeles)

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a petition to cancel an adverse claim on a property's title. The respondents purchased property from Conchita and obtained title under her name, but Conchita later filed an adverse claim before passing away. Her heirs continued opposing the adverse claim's cancellation. The court held that a notice of lis pendens alone does not render an adverse claim cancellation petition moot, as the two serve different purposes - an adverse claim constitutes a lien requiring cancellation, while a lis pendens is merely incidental and does not create rights or liens. Thus, both can be used simultaneously on a title.

Uploaded by

Gennard Michael Angelo Angeles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018 Valderama V Arguelles (Angeles)

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a petition to cancel an adverse claim on a property's title. The respondents purchased property from Conchita and obtained title under her name, but Conchita later filed an adverse claim before passing away. Her heirs continued opposing the adverse claim's cancellation. The court held that a notice of lis pendens alone does not render an adverse claim cancellation petition moot, as the two serve different purposes - an adverse claim constitutes a lien requiring cancellation, while a lis pendens is merely incidental and does not create rights or liens. Thus, both can be used simultaneously on a title.

Uploaded by

Gennard Michael Angelo Angeles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

LOURDES VALDERAMA, Petitioner, v.

SONIA ARGUELLES AND LORNA


ARGUELLES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018

TIJAM, J.:

FACTS:

Respondents filed a petition to cancel adverse claim involving a parcel of land


covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 266311. Respondents alleged that
Conchita, who was the registered owner of a parcel of land consisting of 1000 sqm
located 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 under TCT No. 266311.

Conchita filed an affidavit of adverse claim which was registered and annotated
on TCT No. 266311. On January 24, 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, 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 following, among others: (1) Conchita had continuous
physical and legal possession over the subject property; (2) Conchita was the one
paying for the real estate taxes for the subject property; and (3) Conchita had in her
possession, up to the time of her death, the Owner's Duplicate Copy of the TCT No.
266311.

Meanwhile, on September 24, 2013, 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 the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction against petitioner and Tarcila, among others. Respondents filed a
manifestation and motion praying for the outright cancellation of the adverse claim
annotated on the TCT No. 266311 on the ground that petitioner's subsequent filing of
notice of lis pendens rendered the issue moot and academic.
ISSUE:

Shall the adverse claim caused to be annotated by a person on a title be


cancelled merely because another person caused the annotation of a notice of lis
pendens on the same title?

HELD:

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. 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. In fact, in a later case this Court ruled that the
annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of a certificate of title does not preclude
the subsequent registration on the same certificate of title of an adverse claim.

You might also like