G.R. No. 223660 - Valderama vs. Arguelles

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223660)

Property and Registry Details

Subject: Parcel in Sampaloc, Manila (1,000 sqm)
Original Title: TCT No. 180198 (Conchita Francia)
Subsequent Title: TCT No. 266311 (Arguelles sisters)
Adverse Claim Entry: No. 8957/Vol. 132/T-266311

Procedural History

December 11, 2009 – Respondents filed RTC Case No. P-09-499, LRC Rec. No. 2400, seeking cancellation of the adverse claim.
January 24, 2008 – Conchita died; her heirs (including petitioner and Tarcila) opposed cancellation, alleging simulation of sale.
September 24, 2013 – Respondents filed a separate Civil Case No. 13130761 for recovery of ownership and possession; petitioner and Tarcila thereupon registered a lis pendens (Oct 22, 2013).
April 11, 2014 – RTC Branch 4 ordered cancellation of the adverse claim, relying on Villaflor v. Juezan and acknowledging lis pendens.
July 31, 2014 – RTC denied reconsideration.
CA Appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 103744) – Dismissed December 14, 2015 for raising only questions of law (Rule 50, Sec. 2). Reconsideration denied February 24, 2016.
April 2, 2018 – Supreme Court granted certiorari under Rule 45.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 1 (Due Process Clause and protection of property).
Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529):
• Section 70 – Adverse claims registration and cancellation procedure.
• Section 76 – Notice of lis pendens requirements.
• Section 77 – Cancellation of lis pendens.
Land Registration Act (Act 496), Section 110 (adverse claim origin).
Rules of Court:
• Rule 41, Section 2 – Modes of appeal to CA.
• Rule 45 – Petition for review on certiorari (pure law questions to SC).
• Rule 50, Section 2 – Dismissal of appeals to CA raising only questions of law.

Issue Presented

Whether the subsequent annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 266311 renders moot and academic the pending petition for cancellation of an existing adverse claim on the same title.

Distinction Between Adverse Claim and Lis Pendens

Adverse Claim:
• A lien protecting a claimant’s right in registered land.
• Requires a verified petition and court hearing for cancellation.
• Remains effective until adjudicated invalid by the court.
Lis Pendens:
• A notice flagging pending litigation that may affect title.
• May be canceled ex parte by the Register of Deeds or by court order pre-judgment.
• Does not create a substantive right or lien, merely warns third parties.

Jurisprudential Development

Villaflor v. Juezan (1990): Cancellation of an adverse claim held moot where related civil case had terminated and judgment rendered final.
Ty Sin Tei v. Dy Piao (1958): Held that mere institution of an action and annotation of lis pendens do not invalidate a prior adverse claim. An adverse claim is more permanent and cannot be canceled automatically by lis pendens.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The CA correctly dismissed the improper appeal raising only a question of law under Rule 50, Sec. 2.
The Court relaxed reglementary periods in the interest of justice to address conflicting j

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 223660)

Facts and Antecedents

In November 2004, Conchita Amongo Francia, registered owner of a 1,000 sqm parcel in Sampaloc, Manila (TCT No. 180198), executed an absolute deed of sale in favor of Sonia and Lorna Arguelles.
The Arguelles sisters registered the subject land under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 266311.
On November 14, 2007, Conchita filed an affidavit of adverse claim on TCT No. 266311, which was annotated as Entry No. 8957/Vol. 132.
Conchita died on January 24, 2008, and her legal and physical claims over the property allegedly passed to her full-blooded sisters, petitioner Lourdes Valderama and Tarcila Lopez, by operation of law.

Procedural History

December 11, 2009: Respondents filed RTC Civil Case No. P-09-499 (LRC Record No. 2400) to cancel the adverse claim.
February 10, 2010: Petitioner Valderama and Tarcila Lopez opposed the petition, contending the sale was simulated and Conchita retained possession and tax payments.
September 24, 2013: Respondents filed Civil Case No. 13130761 for recovery of ownership and possession; RTC Branch 47, Manila.
October 22, 2013: Petitioner and Lopez annotated a notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 266311.
November 21, 2013: Respondents moved for outright cancellation of the adverse claim as moot and academic due to lis pendens.
April 11, 2014: RTC Branch 4 issued an order cancelling the adverse claim, without resolving its substance.
July 31, 2014: RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
December 14, 2015: Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit and on the ground that it raised only questions of law.
February 24, 2016: CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
April 2, 2018: Supreme Court, on petition under Rule 45, took up the case despite late filing in the interest of justice.

Issue on Mode of Appeal

Whether the CA correctly dismissed the appeal under Section 2, Rule 50, Rules of Court, as raising only questions of law.
Whether the proper mode of appeal from an RTC decision raising only questions of law is by certiorari (Rule 45) to the Supreme Court rather than by ordinary appeal to the CA.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Whether questions of fact were