G.R. No. 223660 - LOURDES VALDERAMA, VS. SONIA ARGUELLES AND LORNA ARGUELLES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Notice of Adverse Claim made as Entry No. 8957/Vol. 132/T-266311, Registry of Deeds of Manila is ordered CANCELLED. However, the cancellation is not a determination of the veracity and substance of the adverse claim and is not a final determination on the issue of ownership and possession. [17] (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner and Tarcila filed a motion for reconsideration [18] but the same was denied in a Resolution [19] dated July 31, 2014. Aggrieved, petitioner and Tarcila appealed to the CA raising the lone assignment of error: THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF THE ADVERSE CLAIM CAUSED TO BE ANNOTATED BY THE LATE CONCHITA FRANCIA SIMPLY BECAUSE A NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CA USED TO BE ANNOTATED BY OPPOSITORS­ APPELLANTS ON TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 266311 [20] Ruling of the CA On December 14, 2015, the CA rendered a decision [21] dismissing petitioner's appeal for lack of merit. The CA held that the issue on cancellation of adverse claim is a question of law since its resolution would not involve an examination of the evidence but only an application of the law on a particular set of facts. Having raised a sole question of law, the petition was dismissed by the CA pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. [22] Nonetheless, the CA found no error in RTC's cancellation of the adverse claim, to wit : In any case, oppositors-appellants' appeal before this Court has no merit. Oppositors-appellants insist that the RTC erred in ordering the cancellation of the notice of adverse claim annotated at the hack of TCT No. 266311, appearing as Entry No. 8957/Vol. 132. We do not agree. In Villaflor vs. Juezan , the Supreme Court pronoun(c)ed: "The principal issue in this appeal is whether or not an adverse claim annotated in a transfer certificate of title may be cancelled when the validity or invalidity of the claim is still subject of inquiry in a civil case pending resolution by the trial court. x x x x On February 22, 1961 the appellant registered his affidavit of adverse claim in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1217 (formerly a part of Original Certificate of Title 806) under primary entry No. 26083 of the Register of Deeds of Davao. The affidavit conformed to the requirements of Section 110, Act 496. On March 1, 1961, the herein appellant filed Civil Case 3496 seeking from the defendant therein the surrender of owner's duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title T-1217 in order that the deed of sale in favor of the herein appellant will be registered or annotated in the certificate of title. In Civil Case No. 3496 the defendant's answer raised the issue of validity of the deed of sale in favor of the herein appellant. In fact, trial was had on this issue and the case until the present is pending decision in view of the death of Judge Abbas. More than four (4) years after the appellant's adverse claim was annotated that is, on Octo