Case Digest (G.R. No. 251233)
Facts:
Rosita U. Alberto v. Heirs of Juan A. Panti, G.R. No. 251233, March 29, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rosita U. Alberto sought review under Rule 45 to reverse the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated May 27, 2019 and Resolution dated January 15, 2020 in CA-G.R. CV No. 110711, which had reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes, Decision of January 8, 2018 denying a petition to cancel an adverse claim annotated on Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 157.
The dispute arose from an Affidavit of Adverse Claim annotated on OCT No. 157 in favor of Alberto and recorded on May 19, 2008. The Heirs of Juan A. Panti (represented by Juancho B. Panti and Jane Panti) filed a Petition for Cancellation of Affidavit of Adverse Claim in the RTC, alleging that the Heirs were the registered owners of the 16,210-sq.m. subject property and that the adverse claim lacked legal basis. Alberto answered that her parents (Spouses Jose M. Alberto and Rosita U. Alberto) purchased the property in 1966 and that the family had been in open, peaceful possession for decades and had paid real property taxes, thus justifying an adverse claim to protect their interest.
In the RTC, the petition for cancellation was initially denied in a Decision dated December 9, 2008 for lack of basis; the Heirs appealed. In CA-G.R. CV No. 92294, the CA, in a July 24, 2012 decision, set aside that RTC ruling because the RTC had not held hearings and remanded for trial to determine the validity of the adverse claim. On remand the RTC conducted trial and, in a Decision of January 8, 2018, again found Alberto’s claim valid and denied the petition to cancel; an RTC order of February 9, 2018 denied reconsideration.
The Heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA, in the assailed May 27, 2019 Decision, reversed the RTC, granted the petition to cancel the adverse claim, and ordered cancellation of the annotation identified as Entry Number 106669 on page 403, Volume X of OCT No. 157. The CA held among other things that (a) the pleaded sale was at best a contract to sell not perfected because Alberto failed to prove full payment; (b) implied trusts must be registered under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529) and are not registrable as adverse claims under Section 70; and (c) prescription/adverse possession cannot divest title to registered land under Section 47 of PD 1529. The CA denied Alberto’s motion for reconsideration in its January 15, 2020 Resolution.
Alberto then filed the present Rule 45 petition arguing, i...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Affidavit of Adverse Claim annotated on OCT No. 157 in favor of Rosita U. Alberto be cancelled?
- Can the doctrine of laches or long possession, as argued by Alberto, sustain or validate the annotation of an adverse claim against the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)