Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Case Digest: Ching v. Enrile: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Matubis
    The petitioners purchased property through a deed of sale and took physical possession, but did not register the deed. Instead, they registered an Affidavit of Adverse Claim. Three years later, respondents issued a Notice of Levy on the property. Petitioners filed to quiet title. The RTC ruled in petitioners' favor, but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) an Affidavit of Adverse Claim remains valid even after 30 days unless a petition is filed to cancel it, as the law requires such a petition; and (2) no hearing was conducted on any petition to cancel, so the adverse claim was still subsisting. The CA decision was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest: Ching v. Enrile: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Matubis
    36 views2 pages
    The petitioners purchased property through a deed of sale and took physical possession, but did not register the deed. Instead, they registered an Affidavit of Adverse Claim. Three years later, respondents issued a Notice of Levy on the property. Petitioners filed to quiet title. The RTC ruled in petitioners' favor, but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) an Affidavit of Adverse Claim remains valid even after 30 days unless a petition is filed to cancel it, as the law requires such a petition; and (2) no hearing was conducted on any petition to cancel, so the adverse claim was still subsisting. The CA decision was reversed.

    Original Title

    Ching v. Enrile

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners purchased property through a deed of sale and took physical possession, but did not register the deed. Instead, they registered an Affidavit of Adverse Claim. Three years later, respondents issued a Notice of Levy on the property. Petitioners filed to quiet title. The RTC ruled in petitioners' favor, but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) an Affidavit of Adverse Claim remains valid even after 30 days unless a petition is filed to cancel it, as the law requires such a petition; and (2) no hearing was conducted on any petition to cancel, so the adverse claim was still subsisting. The CA decision was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views2 pages

    Case Digest: Ching v. Enrile: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Matubis
    The petitioners purchased property through a deed of sale and took physical possession, but did not register the deed. Instead, they registered an Affidavit of Adverse Claim. Three years later, respondents issued a Notice of Levy on the property. Petitioners filed to quiet title. The RTC ruled in petitioners' favor, but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) an Affidavit of Adverse Claim remains valid even after 30 days unless a petition is filed to cancel it, as the law requires such a petition; and (2) no hearing was conducted on any petition to cancel, so the adverse claim was still subsisting. The CA decision was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Case Digest: Ching v.

     Enrile
    G.R. No. 156076                   September 17, 2008

    FACTS

    Petitioners purchased the subject property thru a deed of absolute sale. The owner’s duplicate
    certificate of title was delivered and they took physical possession of the property. However, the
    conveyance was not registered in the Register of Deeds. Instead, they executed an Affidavit of
    Adverse Claim which was recorded and annotated at the back of TCT No. 83618 reflected in the
    Memorandum of Encumbrances. In the meantime, petitioners peacefully and continuously
    possessed the subject property.

    Three years after they purchased the disputed property, petitioners received a Notice of Levy on
    Attachment and Writ of Execution issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig in favor of
    respondents.

    The petitioners filed a Petition to Remove Cloud on or Quiet Title to Real Property asserting
    ownership of the disputed property. On May 11, 1993, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of
    petitioners upholding the latter’s superior right over the disputed property in view of the
    registration of the Affidavit of Adverse Claim prior to the Certificate of Sale annotated in favor of
    respondents.

    The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that

    1. The petitioners did not have a better right over the disputed property on the theory that
    mere registration of their adverse claim was insufficient. They should have registered the
    Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of Deeds pursuant to Section 51 of PD 1529
    and not merely register an adverse claim under Section 70 of the same law; and
    2. that the annotated Adverse Claim of petitioners had already expired, hence, it offered no
    protection when respondents acquired the disputed property through execution sale as
    cited in the second paragraph of Section 70 which provides that an adverse claim shall
    be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration.

    The CA ruled in favor of the respondents.

    ISSUE

    1. Whether a notice of adverse claim remains valid even after the lapse of the 30-day
    period provided by Section 70 of PD 1529.

    RULING

    1. Yes, a notice of adverse claim remains valid even after the lapse of the 30-day period
    provided by Section 70 of PD 1529. Section 70 provides:

    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 fully 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, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.

    The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant’s residence,
    and a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to
    registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective
    for a period of thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the
    annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by
    the party in interest. Provided, however that after cancellation, no second adverse claim based
    on the same ground shall be registered by the same claimant.

    As long as there is yet no petition for its cancellation, the notice of adverse claim remains
    subsisting.

    If the rationale of the law was for the adverse claim to ipso facto lose force and effect after the
    lapse of thirty days, then it would not have been necessary to include the foregoing caveat to
    clarify and complete the rule. For then, no adverse claim need be cancelled. If it has been
    automatically terminated by mere lapse of time, the law would not have required the party in
    interest to do a useless act.

    In a petition for cancellation of adverse claim, a hearing must first be conducted. The hearing
    will afford the parties an opportunity to prove the propriety or impropriety of the adverse claim.

    The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the CA.

    You might also like