POSITION PAPER ON THE CANCELATION OF ADVERSE CLAIMS
BACKGROUND
HGC wants to arrest the confusion in the matter relation to the legally
correct procedure in the cancelation of an adverse claim. HGC is the
registered owner to thousands of titles, some of which have adverse claim
annotations. In the Manila Harbor account along, 64 of these have such
annotations, the language of which reads as:
Entry No. 8329/V-116/T-233408- NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIMExecuted by Leopoldo T. Sanchez, President of R-II Builders, Inc.
claiming upon others that R-II is entitled to the residual value of the
properties in the possession of the Asset Pool or the HGC upon the
payment of all its liabilities of the the herein prescribed properties.
Other claims set forth under Dec. No. 429. Page No. 87, Book No. 1
Series of 2002 of Notary Public for Quezon city, Ayla Ann I. Angeles
Visco.
Date of Instrument- October 23, 2002
Date of Inscription- October 24, 2002- 2:20 P.M.
The annotations are identical on all 64 titles.
ISSUE
There is a question on whether the 30-day period in Section 70 of PD 1529
(Property Registration Decree) affects the manner of filing the verified
petition for cancelation of an adverse claim.
Further, the law itself is ambiguous on where such petition should be filed.
DISCUSSION
Sec. 70 of PD 1529 stipulates that after the lapse of said [30-day] period
the annotation of adverse claim may be canceled upon filing of a verified
petition therefor by the party in interest. The law does not specify where
the verified petition must be filed and which party in interest must file it.
This ambiguity is somehow clarified in the last paragraph of the section
stating:
Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may
file a petition in the Court of First Instance where the land is situated for the
1
cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy
hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall
render judgment as may be just and equitable.(PD 1529)
PD 1529 thus states that the verified petition must be filed in court if the
prescribed 30-day period has not elapsed yet, but does not speak of where
to file after the end of such period.
Legal jurisprudence refers to Sec. 110 of Act 496 as the answer to this
ambiguity. Provided that PD 1529 did not repeal such Act, it works
alongside Sec. 70, stating:
This statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim,
and the court, upon a petition of any party in interest, shall grant a speedy
hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim and shall
enter such decree therein as justice and equity may require. If the claim is
adjudged to be invalid, the registration shall be canceled.
Which is why in Ty Sin Tei v. Dy, the Supreme Court said that, the
same is not true in a registered adverse claim, for it may be cancelled only
in one instance, i.e., after the claim is adjudged invalid or unmeritorious by
the Court, acting either as a land registration court or one of general
jurisdiction while passing upon a case before it where the subject of the
litigation is the same interest or right which is being secured by the
adverse claim. (G.R. No. L-11271, May 28, 1958)
This earlier ruling has been affirmed in the more recent, Sajonas v. CA. In
this case, the 30-day period for the effectivity of the adverse claim was done
without and it further adjudged that, The validity or efficaciousness of the
claim, however, may only determine by the Court upon petition by an
interested party, in which event, the Court shall order the immediate hearing
thereof and make the proper adjudication as justice and equity may
warrant. And it is ONLY when such claim is found unmeritorious that the
registration thereof may be cancelled. (citing Ty Sin Tei v. Dy Piao) (G.R. No.
102377, July 5, 1996).
However, contradicting such jurisprudence, the Land Registration Authority
itself, through the Commissioner tasked to issue, subject to the approval
of the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules and regulations therefor as
mandated by PD 1529, had issued circulars and memorandum circulars
providing for a procedure for the cancelation of adverse claims,
consequently interpreting PD 1529 and Act 496, the language of which
reads:
Adverse Claim
1.
After the lapse of thirty (30) days, by verified petition to
Register of Deeds by party in interest.
2.
Before the lapse of thirty (30) days:
2.1
By order of the Court presented by any party in
interest.
2.2
Sworn petition before Register of Deeds of the
claimant withdrawing his claim.
(LRA Circular No. 54, June 9,1993, Revised Guidelines on
the Registration of Transactions Under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP))
This same process has been reiterated in the Joint DAR-LRA Memorandum
Circular 09-96.
The present practice in the LRA does not follow such circulars. According to
the LRA, if you are the registered owner, cancelation of the adverse claim
may only be done by a Court Order to be verified and presented to the
Register of Deeds (ROD), and if the cancelation is voluntary or by the
adverse claimant himself, a verified petition with the ROD would suffice.
However, while this procedure is in tune with the Sajonas decision, the
contradicting authorities on the process still stand, neither one repealing the
other. According to the Public Information Division and the Law Division of
the LRA no subsequent circular, memorandum or memorandum circular has
repealed or amended LRA Circular 54-93 and Joint DAR-LRA Memorandum
Circular 09-96.
Upon research, a possible authority on the matter emerged, LRA Consulta
No. 2455 dated August 9, 2002, states that:
"At this stage where the act of recording has been completed and
registration is an accomplished fact, this Administration can no longer direct
the Register of Deeds to cancel the annotation from the certificate of title.
The recording of the memorandum being fait accompli its cancellation may
be effected only upon order of the court or by means of a voluntary
instrument executed by the one who caused the registration."
(http://registryofdeeds.blogspot.com, March 1, 2011, retrieved November 12,
2013)
Another LRA Consulta (No. 2805 and 2963) further states that, This
Authority has abandoned the earlier practice of allowing the cancellation of
adverse claim through a sworn petition by the party interest (a registered
owner) addressed to the Register of Deeds. The registered owner must
instead address his petition for cancellation of the adverse claim to the
proper court. This is in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case
of "Alfredo Sajonas and Conchita Sajonas, petitoners, versus, the Court of
Appeals, Domingo A. Pilares, Sheriff Garcia of Quezon City and the Register
of Deeds of Marikina, Respondents," GR No. 102377 promulgated on July 5,
1996, which declared that an adverse claim annotated on the title can only
be cancelled by order of the court.
The question remains however, if such Consultas effectively amended or
repealed the Commissioners issued circulars and whether such are binding
to third parties. On this matter, Sec. 117 of PD 1529 states that:
Section 117. Procedure. When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with
regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in
pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for
registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with the action
taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the
question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration by the
Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds.
Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds
shall notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the defects of the
instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that if he is not
agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the documents from
the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within five days from receipt of
notice of the denial of registration to the Commissioner of Land Registration.
The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the pending
consulta on the certificate of title which shall be canceled motu proprio by
the Register of Deeds after final resolution or decision thereof, or before
resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.
The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the consulta and
the records certified to him after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter
an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His
resolution or ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and binding upon all
Registers of Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who disagrees
with the final resolution, ruling or order of the Commissioner
relative to consultas may appeal to the Court of Appeals within the
period and in manner provided in Republic Act No. 5434 (PD 1529)
4
As held in Almirol v. Register of Deeds (GR No. L-22486, March 20, 1968),
a Register of Deeds is entirely precluded from exercising his personal
judgment and discretion when confronted with the problem of whether to
register a deed or instrument on the ground that it is invalid. For when he is
in doubt as to the proper step to take with respect to any deed, or other
instrument presented to him for registration, all that he is supposed to do is
to submit and certify the question to the LRA Commissioner who shall, after
notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step to be taken on the
doubtful question. This process is further embodied in Sec. 4 of RA 1151
which says:
REFERENCE OF DOUBTFUL MATTERS TO COMMISSIONER
OF LAND REGISTRATION. When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with
regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in
pursuance of any deed, mortgage, or other instrument presented to him for
registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with the Register
of Deeds with reference to any such matter, the question shall be submitted
to the Commissioner of Land Registration either upon the certification of the
Register of Deeds, stating the question upon which he is doubt, or upon the
suggestion in writing by the party in interest; and thereupon the
Commissioner, after consideration of the matter shown by the records
certified to him, and in case of registered lands, after notice to the parties
and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or
memorandum to be made. His decision in such cases shall be conclusive and
binding upon all Register of Deeds, PROVIDED, FURTHER, That when a party
in interest disagrees with the ruling or resolution of the Commissioner and
the issue involves a question of law, said decision may be appealed to the
Supreme Court within thirty days from and after receipt of the notice
thereof. (RA 1151)
The Consultas while binding on all Register of Deeds, stands the scrutiny of
the third parties-in-interest disagreeing with the ruling or resolution of the
Commissioner, and explicitly gives due course to valid questions of law.
PURPOSE
Following the prevalent process of procuring a Court Order to cancel an
adverse claim would require a long and litigious process, providing the
adverse claimants, time to benefit from our stagnation, and to prejudice us,
5
by preventing us from efficiently profiting from said lands and entering any
subsequent dealings.
Given that two processes seem to stand, the other an administrative one at
that, it should be properly elected and exhausted to afford us a speedy and
cost-efficient cancelation of these adverse claims.
Undoubtedly, a question of law is present, and aside from HGCs moral and
civil role to intervene and help in simplifying and clarifying the land titling
and registration system, it will also serve as a viable precedent and help us
in all further litigations regarding our titles at hand.
THE PROCESS
Submit Verified Petition to RD for Cancelation of Adverse Claim
Approval by RD
Denial by RD
Certification by the RD of the question to the
Commissioner or Appeal by the party-in-interest
en consulta.
Commission
er issues an
order in
favor of
party-in-
Commission
er issues an
order
adversewith
to
Appeal
the
party-inCA by Rule
43
(Calalang
v. Register
of Deeds of
6 Quezon
City), RA
5424) within
15 days
Appeal to
Supreme
Court Rule
45 within 15
days
