SECOND DIVISION
SPOUSES FRANCISCO and G.R. No. 142687
BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners, Present:
Puno,
J., Chairman,
- versus - Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Azcuna, and
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Garcia, JJ.
SPOUSES CHRISTOPHER and
MA. ANGELICA BARRAMEDA,
and SPOUSES ANTONIO and Promulgated:
MARIDEL CALINGO,
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:
This
is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
The
facts show that herein respondent Spouses Antonio and Maridel Calingo
(respondents Calingo) were the registered owners of a house and lot located at
On
P150,000.00 and P528,539.76, for which
respondents Calingo issued a receipt dated
In a letter dated
On
On
Respondents Barrameda
moved into the property on
On
On
On P364,992.07 to complete the payment of
the agreed purchase price. Respondents
Calingo acknowledged receipt of said amount and waived all their rights to the
property in favor of the Barrameda spouses.
They also guaranteed that the property was clear and free from any liens
and encumbrances, except the real estate mortgage assumed by respondents
Barrameda.[7]
On October 7, 1992, respondents
Barrameda executed a joint affidavit stating that they are the owners of the
property in question by virtue of a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage;
that they registered an affidavit of adverse claim with the Register of Deeds
of Parañaque; that the Sheriff of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati, Sheriff
Manuel C. Dolor, levied said property despite their adverse claim; and that
they have acquired the property long before the levy was made, and therefore,
said levy was illegal. They served a
copy of the affidavit on petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Loyola, who made a reply
thereto on
In his letter to Christopher
Barrameda dated October 15, 1992, Atty. Loyola pointed out that the alleged
deed of sale with assumption of mortgage was not registered with the Register
of Deeds and that the records of the HMDF show that the property is owned by
the Calingo spouses. He urged the
Barrameda spouses to confer with the petitioners to amicably settle the
controversy.[8]
On
On
On
inscribed on the certificate of title be cancelled, and that respondents
Barrameda be declared the lawful and sole owners of the property in question.[10]
The trial court ruled in favor of herein
petitioners and dismissed respondents Barrameda’s petition for quieting of
title. It ruled that the annotation of
respondents Barrameda’s adverse claim at the back of the certificate of title
was insufficient to establish their claim over the property. It said that respondents Barrameda, as buyers
of the property, should have registered the title in their names. Furthermore, respondents Barrameda’s adverse
claim had lost its efficacy after the lapse of thirty days in accordance with
the provisions of the Land Registration Act.
The trial court also found that there was collusion between respondents
Barrameda and respondents Calingo to transfer the property to defraud third
parties who may have a claim against the
Calingos.[11]
The Court of Appeals, however,
reversed the decision of the trial court.
Citing the ruling in Sajonas
v. Court of Appeals,[12]
the appellate court held that respondents Barrameda’s
adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title was still effective at the
time the property was levied on execution.
It said:
Therefore,
the disputed inscription of adverse claim on TCT No. 83612/57286 was still in
effect on
The court held, therefore, that the
notice of levy could not prevail over respondents Barrameda’s adverse claim.
Petitioners moved for a
reconsideration of the appellate court’s ruling, but the motion was denied.
Hence, this petition. Petitioners essentially argue that the remedy
of a petition for quieting of title was not available to respondents Barrameda
as they did not have a valid title to the property in question; that the affidavit of adverse claim inscribed
by respondents Barrameda at the back of the certificate of title was not
sufficient to establish their claim to the property; and there was collusion
between respondents Barrameda and respondents Calingo.
The principal issue that needs to be
resolved in this case is whether respondents Barrameda’s adverse claim on the
property should prevail over the levy on execution issued by another court in
satisfaction of a judgment against respondents Calingo.
We hold that it cannot.
Respondents Barrameda anchor their
claim on the property on the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed
by them and respondents Calingo on
Sec.
51. Conveyance and other dealings by
registered owner. An owner of
registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the
same in accordance with existing laws.
He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary
instruments as are sufficient in law. But
no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will
purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a
conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the
parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make
registration.
The
act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the
registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the
province or city where the land lies. (emphasis
supplied)
It is admitted in this case that the
deed of sale with assumption of mortgage was not registered, but instead,
respondents Barrameda filed an affidavit of adverse claim with the Register of
Deeds. The question now is whether the
adverse claim is sufficient to bind third parties such as herein petitioners.
In L.P. Leviste and Company, Inc.
v. Noblejas,[14]
we explained when an inscription of an adverse claim is sufficient to affect
third parties, thus:
The
basis of respondent Villanueva’s adverse claim was an agreement to sell
executed in her favor by Garcia Realty.
An agreement to sell is a voluntary instrument as it is a wilful act of the registered owner. As such voluntary instrument, Section 50 of
Act No. 496 [now Presidential Decree No. 1529] expressly provides that the act
of registration shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land. And Section 55 of the same Act requires the presentation
of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title for the registration of any deed
or voluntary instrument. As the
agreement to sell involves an interest less than an estate in fee simple, the
same should have been registered by filing it with the Register of Deeds who,
in turn, makes a brief memorandum thereof upon the original and owner’s
duplicate certificate of title. The
reason for requiring the production of the owner’s duplicate certificate in the
registration of a voluntary instrument is that, being a wilful
act of the registered owner, it is to be presumed that he is interested in
registering the instrument and would willingly surrender, present or produce
his duplicate certificate of title to the Register of Deeds in order to
accomplish such registration. However,
where the owner refuses to surrender the duplicate certificate for the
annotation of the voluntary instrument, the grantee may file with the Register
of Deeds a statement setting forth his adverse claim, as provided for in Section
110 of Act No. 496. In such a case,
the annotation of the instrument upon the entry book is sufficient to affect
the real estate to which it relates, although Section 72 of Act No. 496 imposes
upon the Register of Deeds the duty to require the production by the [r]egistered
owner of his duplicate certificate for the inscription of the adverse
claim. The annotation of an adverse
claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece
of real property where the registration
of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land
Registration Act, and serves as a notice and warning to third parties dealing
with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better
right than the registered owner thereof.
(emphases supplied)
In the case at bar, the reason given
for the non-registration of the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage was
that the owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title was in the
possession of HMDF. It was not shown,
however, that either respondents Barrameda or respondents Calingo exerted any
effort to retrieve the owner’s duplicate copy from the HMDF for the purpose of
registering the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage. In fact, the parties did not even seek to obtain
the consent of, much less inform, the HMDF of the sale of the property. This, despite the provision in the contract
of mortgage prohibiting the mortgagor (respondents Calingo) from selling or
disposing the property without the written consent of the mortgagee.[15]
Respondents Calingo, as party to the
contract of mortgage, are charged with the knowledge of such provision and are
bound to comply therewith. Apparently,
there was haste in disposing the property that respondents Calingo informed HMDF of the sale only on P1,159,355.90
was rendered on January 28, 1992, before the sale of the property on April 27,
1992. We also find it unsettling that
respondents Barrameda, without any reservation or inquiry, readily remitted to
respondents Calingo the full payment for the property on
Again, we stress that the annotation
of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person
over a piece of property where the registration of such interest or right is
not otherwise provided for by the law on registration of real property. Section
70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 is clear:
Sec.
70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in
registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date
of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this
Decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth
his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to
the number of the certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the
registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest
is claimed. xxx
The deed of sale with assumption of mortgage
executed by respondents Calingo and Barrameda is a registrable instrument. In order to bind third parties, it must be
registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds. It was not shown in this case that there was
justifiable reason why the deed could not be registered. Hence, the remedy of
adverse claim cannot substitute for registration.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial
Court,
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairman
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[1] Exhibit
“C,” Original Records, p. 18.
[2] Exhibit
“9,” Original Records, p. 21.
[3] Exhibits
“F” and “F-1,” Original Records, p. 23.
[5] Exhibit
“G,” Original Records, p. 25.
[6] Exhibit
“5-B,” Original Records, p. 59.
[7] Exhibit
“E,” Original Records, p. 22.
[8] Original
Records, p. 29.
[9] Original
Records, pp. 30-31.
[10] Original
Records, pp. 4-17.
[11] Rollo,
pp. 203-210.
[12] G.R.
No. 102377,
[13] Presidential
Decree No. 1529.
[14] No.
L-28529,
[15] 2. The
Mortgagor shall not sell, dispose of, or mortgage, nor in any manner encumber
the mortgaged property without the written consent of the Mortgagee. If in spite of this stipulation the property
is sold, the Vendee shall assume the mortgage in the terms and conditions under
which it is constituted it being understood that the assumption by the Vendee
shall not release the Vendor of his obligation to the Mortgagee. On the contrary, both Vendor and Vendee shall
be jointly and severally liable for said mortgage obligation. xxx
(Original Records, p. 119.)