Case Digest (G.R. No. 166536)
Facts:
- Property Ownership: The land in Mandaluyong, Rizal, was originally owned by Edilberto Brua and covered by TCT No. 346026.
- Mortgage to GSIS: In 1974, the property was mortgaged to the GSIS.
- Loan and Mortgage to Garcia: On February 5, 1980, Brua obtained a P150,000 loan from his brother-in-law, Ernesto Garcia, and mortgaged the property to him.
- Affidavit of Adverse Claim: Garcia registered an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on June 23, 1980, as the title was with GSIS.
- Paying off GSIS Loan: In October 1991, Brua asked Garcia to pay off the GSIS loan, which Garcia did.
- Deed of Absolute Sale: A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed between Brua and Garcia for P705,000, and Garcia registered the deed, resulting in TCT No. 5204 issued in his and his wife's names.
- Annotations on New Title: The new title included annotations, such as a Notice of Levy on Execution and a Certificate of Sale in favor of Flor Martinez, due to a final judgment in a collection case against Brua.
- Action to Quiet Title: Garcia and Brua filed an action to quiet title against Martinez and Pilipinas Bank, which had a similar annotation.
- RTC and CA Decisions: The RTC of Pasig dismissed the action, ruling in favor of Martinez and Pilipinas Bank, but the CA reversed this decision, leading to the present petition for certiorari.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, affirming the CA's decision and resolution.
- Garcia's adverse claim, annotated in 1980, prevails over the subsequ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Correct Remedy: The Supreme Court stated that the correct remedy for the petitioner should have been a petition for review under Rule 45, not certiorari under Rule 65.
- Final CA Decision: The petition for certiorari was filed after the appeal period had lapsed, making the CA's decision final.
- Certiorari Limitations: Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and is only available when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
- No Grave Abuse: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA, as its decision adhered to the principle that a prior registered adverse claim constitutes constructive notice to subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers.
- Validity of Adverse Claim: Garcia's adverse claim, registered in 1980, was valid when ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 166536)
Facts:
The case involves Flor Martinez, represented by Macario Martinez, as the petitioner against respondents Ernesto G. Garcia and Edilberto M. Brua. The events leading to this case began with Edilberto Brua, the registered owner of a parcel of land in Mandaluyong, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 346026. This property was initially mortgaged to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) on June 5, 1974. On February 5, 1980, Brua borrowed P150,000 from his brother-in-law, Ernesto Garcia, and secured this loan with a mortgage on the same property. Due to the existing mortgage with GSIS, Garcia could not register the mortgage deed immediately but filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on June 23, 1980, which remained uncanceled.
In October 1991, Brua requested Garcia to pay off the GSIS loan, which Garcia did, amounting to P400,000. Subsequently, on October 22, 1991, Brua sold the property to Garcia for P705,000, indicating that the sale was a partial payment of Brua's mortgage debt to Garcia. Garcia registered the Deed of Sale on October 24, 1991, resulting in the issuance of a new TCT No. 5204, which carried over the previous encumbrances, including those in favor of Flor Martinez.
Martinez had previously obtained a judgment against Brua for P244,594.10 due to dishonored checks, leading to a public auction where she acquired the property for P10,000. In 1994, Garcia and Brua filed an Action to Qui...