Title
Spouses Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 102377
Decision Date
Jul 5, 1996
Spouses Sajonas' prior Adverse Claim prevailed over the later Notice of Levy, upheld by the Supreme Court, deeming them buyers in good faith.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 135038)

Facts:

  • Parties and Property
    • Petitioners Alfredo Sajonas and Conchita R. Sajonas purchased a residential parcel in Antipolo, Rizal from spouses Ernesto B. Uychocde and Lucita Jarin.
    • Private respondent Domingo A. Pilares is a judgment creditor of the Uychocdes; Sheriff Roberto Garcia of Quezon City and the Register of Deeds of Marikina are also named as respondents.
  • Chronology of Events
    • September 22, 1983 – Spouses Uychocde and Jarin executed a Contract to Sell in favor of the Sajonas couple on installment basis; property registered under TCT No. N-79073 (Marikina).
    • August 27, 1984 – Petitioners annotated an Adverse Claim (Entry No. 116017) on TCT No. N-79073 based on their Contract to Sell.
    • September 4, 1984 – Uychocdes executed the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Sajonas; registration occurred on August 28, 1985, resulting in issuance of TCT No. N-109417 in petitioners’ names.
    • June 25, 1980 to August 12, 1982 – In Civil Case No. Q-28850, Pilares and Uychocde entered a compromise agreement; Uychocde defaulted and a writ of execution was issued.
    • February 12, 1985 – Sheriff Garcia presented and caused annotation of a Notice of Levy on Execution on the back of TCT No. N-79073 (Entry No. 123283); this annotation was carried over to new TCT No. N-109417.
    • October 21, 1985 – Petitioners filed a Third Party Claim with the sheriff, preventing the auction sale.
    • January 10, 1986 – Petitioners demanded cancellation of the levy annotation; Pilares refused.
    • February 5, 1986 – Sajonas couple filed complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rizal, Branch 71, for cancellation of the Notice of Levy.
  • Procedural History
    • March 8, 1986 – Pilares filed Answer with compulsory counterclaim, asserting that the adverse claim lapsed after 30 days under Section 70, P.D. 1529, and that the sale from the Uychocdes was fraudulent.
    • February 15, 1989 – RTC rendered decision in favor of petitioners, ordered cancellation of the levy annotation and awarded attorney’s fees.
    • October 17, 1991 – The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, upheld validity of the levy annotation, and dismissed the complaint.
    • July 5, 1996 – Supreme Court rendered the challenged decision on petition for review on certiorari.

Issues:

  • Whether an Adverse Claim under Section 70 of P.D. 1529 automatically loses force and effect upon the lapse of thirty days from registration.
  • Whether a Notice of Levy on Execution registered after the lapse of thirty days may nevertheless prevail over a prior Adverse Claim.
  • Whether petitioners qualify as purchasers in good faith, and whether their purchase is fraudulent as to Pilares.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.