Case Digest (G.R. No. 223660)
Facts:
Lourdes Valderama, petitioner, v. Sonia Arguelles and Lorna Arguelles, respondents, G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018, First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.
On December 11, 2009, Sonia Arguelles and Lorna Arguelles filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Manila a petition to cancel an adverse claim annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 266311 (docketed as Case No. P-09-499, LRC Record No. 2400). The respondents alleged that Conchita Amongo Francia (the registered owner) had executed an absolute deed of sale in their favor and the property was later registered under TCT No. 266311. Conchita had earlier caused an affidavit of adverse claim to be annotated on that title on November 14, 2007; she died on January 24, 2008.
On February 10, 2010, petitioner Valderama and Tarcila Lopez—Conchita’s full-blood sisters—filed an opposition asserting that Conchita’s rights devolved to her heirs and alleging simulation of the sale (citing Conchita’s continued possession, tax payments, and possession of the owner’s duplicate of the TCT). While the petition for cancellation of adverse claim was pending, respondents filed a separate complaint for recovery of ownership and possession (Civil Case No. 13130761, RTC Branch 47, Manila) on September 24, 2013; petitioner thereafter caused a notice of lis pendens to be annotated on TCT No. 266311 on October 22, 2013.
Respondents moved to cancel the adverse claim on the ground that the subsequent lis pendens rendered the petition for cancellation moot and academic. The RTC, by Resolution dated April 11, 2014, ordered the cancellation of the adverse claim (Entry No. 8957/Vol. 132/T-266311), reasoning that the lis pendens annotated on the title made the adverse claim unnecessary though stressing the cancellation did not determine ownership or possession. A motion for reconsideration was denied on July 31, 2014. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in a Decision dated December 14, 2015, dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit and as raising only a pure question of law—an improper appeal to the CA under Section 2, Rule 41 and Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court—and nonetheless found no error in the RTC’s cancellation, largely invoking Villaflor v. Juezan. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated February 24, 2016. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rul...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the appeal to the Court of Appeals raise only a pure question of law such that the CA properly dismissed it under the Rules of Court?
- Is Villaflor v. Juezan applicable to justify the RTC’s cancellation of the adverse claim in this case?
- Does the subsequent annotation of a notice of lis pendens on a certificate of title automatically render a petition to cancel an adverse claim on the same title moot and jus...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)