G.R. No. L-35744 - Junio vs. De los Santos

Petitioner-appellant Wenceslao Junio was the registered owner of a 7.65-hectare parcel of land in Bayambang, Pangasinan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1004.
Respondents were Feliciano de los Santos and two co-vendees, Guillermo de la Cruz and Jose Junio, claiming a portion of the property.

Respondent Feliciano de los Santos executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim, asserting ownership of one-third undivided interest in petitioner’s land, based on a purported Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by petitioner in favor of respondents. This adverse claim was annotated on petitioner’s title.
Petitioner denied ever selling any part of his property to respondents and sought cancellation of the adverse claim annotation.

Petitioner filed a Petition for cancellation of the Adverse Claim before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Pangasinan.
The Court of First Instance dismissed petitioner’s petition for lack of merit, reasoning that petitioner had another remedy and that cancellation through summary proceedings was inappropriate.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court for final resolution due to the purely legal question involved.

Section 110 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) allows one claiming an adverse right or interest in registered land to register an adverse claim in the absence of other means of registration.
Section 57 of the same Act provides a procedure for registration of a documented sale of registered land through surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title.
Petitioner alleged that the adverse claim annotation was improper because Section 57 provided an adequate registration means and because the Register of Deeds acted negligently.
Respondent claimed that petitioner’s refusal to surrender the duplicate certificate of title prevented registration under Section 57, compelling the adverse claim under Section 110.
Petitioner asserted that Section 111 of the Land Registration Act provided the proper remedy when the owner’s duplicate certificate is withheld and registration is requested without consent.

Whether the annotation of an adverse claim under Section 110 of Act No. 496 was proper, given petitioner’s refusal to surrender the duplicate certificate of title.

Whether the remedy prescribed under Section 111 of the Land Registration Act was applicable under the circumstances.

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioner’s petition without conducting a hearing on the validity of the adverse claim as required under Section 110.

Whether the action for cancellation of the adverse claim was proper under summary proceedings or whether the merits of the ownership claims must be decided in an ordinary civil action.