Facts:

• The case involves two related petitions concerning Cadastral Lot No. 434 in Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte.
• The lot was registered in the names of brothers Edelburgo Cheng and Bonifacio Cheng, who purchased it on July 18, 1966, for P75,000 from the heirs of Lorenzo Belcia.
• The original Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 5066 had two annotations: a notice of lis pendens dated June 14, 1966, regarding Case No. 1656 filed by Sergio Belcia Montesclaros, and an adverse claim by Lim Tian Kee and Regina Ortega registered on July 20, 1966.
• On August 15, 1966, the Cheng brothers filed a petition to cancel these annotations, alleging irregularities due to the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 5066 not being surrendered.
• Montesclaros opposed the petition, asserting his notice of lis pendens was properly registered.
• Lim Tian Kee and Regina Ortega, common-law spouses and mortgagees of shares in the lot, also opposed the petition.
• The lower court granted the Cheng brothers' petition on September 5, 1966, and ordered the cancellation of the adverse claim and notice of lis pendens.
• Lim Tian Kee and Regina Ortega’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
• In a related case, on September 16, 1966, Lim Tian Kee and Regina Ortega filed a petition to compel the Cheng brothers to surrender the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 9535 to register their mortgage deeds, which was dismissed on September 23, 1966.
• The Cheng brothers also filed an action to quiet title and eject Lim Tian Kee and Regina Ortega from the lot on October 12, 1966, which was ruled in their favor and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, becoming final and executory after the Supreme Court denied the appeal.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the lower court's orders dated September 5 and 13, 1966, in Miscellaneous Special Proceeding No. 1446.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order of dismissal dated September 23, 1966, in Miscellaneous Special Proceeding No. 1461.
3. The Supreme Court held that the lower court, as a land re...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court reasoned that petitions for the cancellation of annotations on a Torrens title and for the annotation of an adverse claim are incidents involving registered land and should be filed und...continue reading