G.R. No. 251233 - Alberto vs. Heirs of Panti

Petitioner: Rosita U. Alberto (Alberto). Respondents: Heirs of Juan A. Panti, represented by Juancho B. Panti (Heirs of Panti).
Subject property: Lot No. 4276, 16,210 square meters, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 157, located in Calatagan, Virac, Catanduanes; Free Patent No. 279275 issued January 15, 1965.

Alberto’s allegation: Spouses Jose M. Alberto and Rosita U. Alberto bought the subject property "sometime in 1966" from the Heirs of Panti (represented by Lydia B. Panti). Evidence offered consisted of two acknowledgment receipts dated June 12, 1966 and July 28, 1966 described as partial payments. No deed of sale was produced. Alberto alleged a resulting/implied trust in favor of her family, continuous open and peaceful possession for over 40 years, and payment of real property taxes (tax payments shown for 1997–2008). On May 19, 2008, Alberto executed and caused annotation of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on OCT No. 157.
Heirs of Panti’s position: They remained the registered owners under OCT No. 157 and retained physical possession of the owner’s duplicate title. They denied any perfected sale to the Albertos, argued the 1966 receipts evidenced only partial payments and no transfer of ownership, and noted the free patent issued in 1965 was within the five-year prohibition against encumbrance or transfer (thus alleged alienation in 1966 would be void).

At the Regional Trial Court (Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes): Heirs of Panti filed a Petition for Cancellation of Affidavit of Adverse Claim (seeking cancellation of the annotation made May 19, 2008). RTC initially rendered a Decision dated December 9, 2008 denying cancellation (found adverse claim had factual/legal basis). CA remanded in CA Decision July 24, 2012 directing trial to determine propriety of the adverse claim. Trial ensued; RTC rendered a Decision dated January 8, 2018 again denying the petition to cancel the adverse claim; a motion for reconsideration was denied February 9, 2018.
Court of Appeals (CA): In CA-G.R. CV No. 110711 the CA, in a Decision dated May 27, 2019, reversed the RTC and granted the petition to cancel the adverse claim (ordered cancellation of Entry No. 106669, page 403, Vol. X of OCT No. 157). CA denied Alberto’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 15, 2020.
Supreme Court: Alberto filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated March 29, 2023, denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution.

Whether the Affidavit of Adverse Claim annotated on OCT No. 157 by Alberto (May 19, 2008) should be cancelled.

Whether the Albertos’ asserted rights (based on the alleged 1966 purchase and resulting/implied trust) constituted a registrable adverse claim under Section 70 of PD 1529, or instead were registrable under another provision (e.g., Section 68 for implied trusts or Section 54/52 for interests less than ownership).
Whether possession, payment of real property taxes and alleged laches of the registered owners could justify maintaining an adverse claim on a registered title (i.e., can adverse possession or laches be registered as an adverse claim against registered land).