Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35744)
Facts:
Wenceslao Junio v. Feliciano de los Santos and Register of Deeds of Pangasinan, G.R. No. L-35744, September 28, 1984, Supreme Court First Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Wenceslao Junio was the registered owner of a 7.65-hectare parcel in Bayambang, Pangasinan covered by TCT No. 1004. Respondent Feliciano de los Santos and two alleged co-vendees, Guillermo de la Cruz and Jose Junio, claimed that petitioner had sold a one-third undivided interest to them; an Affidavit of Adverse Claim asserting that interest was executed by de los Santos and annotated on petitioner’s title. The Register of Deeds of Pangasinan was the other named respondent because it annotated the adverse claim.
Petitioner denied any sale and filed a petition for cancellation of the adverse claim under the former Land Registration Act (Act No. 496). He argued that annotation by way of an adverse claim under Section 110 was inappropriate where a documented sale of titled land should have been registered under Section 57, and he faulted the Register of Deeds for registering the adverse claim without the requisite formalities. Respondent de los Santos answered that he had attempted to avail himself of the procedure in Section 57 but could not because petitioner refused to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate of title; accordingly, he resorted to an adverse claim under Section 110.
The case was submitted on the pleadings without presentation of evidence. The former Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan dismissed petitioner’s petition for cancellation, finding it without merit and suggesting petitioner’s remedy lay outside the summary proceedings. Because the question was purely one of law, the then Court of Appeals certified petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the adve...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was resort to an adverse claim under Section 110 of Act No. 496 proper where the registered owner refused to surrender the duplicate certificate and the vendee could not effect registration under Section 57?
- Is Section 111 of Act No. 496 the proper remedy when the owner withholds the duplicate certificate but the genuineness or due execution of the sale is controverted?
- Should the trial court have conducted a speedy hearing on the validity of the adverse claim ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)