Title
Spouses Ching vs. Spouses Enrile
Case
G.R. No. 156076
Decision Date
Sep 17, 2008
Petitioners purchased property, registered adverse claim, and took possession. Respondents levied attachment, claiming superior rights. SC ruled adverse claim valid, petitioners' ownership upheld due to constructive notice and possession.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 156076)

Applicable Law

The legal issues addressed in this case are governed by the provisions outlined in Presidential Decree No. 1529, known as the Property Registration Decree, alongside relevant principles from the Civil Code concerning property ownership and registration.

Background of the Case

Petitioners Jesus Ching and Lee Poe Tin purchased a 370-square meter lot from Raymunda La Fuente on September 5, 1985, and were provided with a Deed of Absolute Sale along with the Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of Title. Notably, despite this purchase, the transaction was not registered with the Register of Deeds, as mandated by Section 51 of PD 1529. Instead, on November 20, 1986, the petitioners filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim, which was subsequently annotated on TCT No. 83618.

Development of Events

The situation escalated when, on August 19, 1988, petitioners received a Notice of Levy on Attachment from the RTC of Pasig in favor of respondents relating to an execution against La Fuente. The respondents then acquired the property through a Certificate of Sale dated January 26, 1989. In response to the conflicting claims, petitioners filed a complaint to quiet title on January 8, 1990.

Regional Trial Court Ruling

On May 11, 1993, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, asserting their superior claim over the property based on the earlier registration of their Affidavit of Adverse Claim compared to the Certificate of Sale in favor of respondents. The RTC ordered the cancellation of the annotations favoring the respondents and awarded damages to the petitioners.

Court of Appeals Decision

Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred in its ruling. The CA, in its decision dated August 29, 2002, recognized the sale to petitioners as valid but ultimately reversed the RTC's decision, asserting that petitioners failed to protect their interests adequately by not formally registering their Deed of Absolute Sale.

Key Legal Principles

The CA highlighted important legal principles under PD 1529, specifically that registration is the operative act to convey rights concerning registered land. It emphasized that a deed or claim, to be enforceable against third parties, must be registered. Respondents maintained that the annotation of the petitioners’ adverse claim had expired within the 30-day period prescribed by the law, thus negating its efficacy when they acquired the property.

Supreme Court's Analysis

Upon petitioning to the Supreme Court, the Court found merit in the petitioners’ case, particularly contesting the CA's ruling on the expiration of the adverse claim. The Supreme Court clarified that an adverse claim remains valid even after 30 days unless a petition for cancellation has been filed. The Court underscored that the existence o

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.