Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Sps. Desiderio & Edarlina Frogozo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Zosimo and Benita Asis were the registered owners of a parcel of land in Manila. On January 17, 1983, spouses Desiderio and Edarlina Frogozo caused an adverse claim to be annotated on the property's title. Subsequently, on August 28, 1986, Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. (ERDI) levied on the property, annotating a notice of levy. On February 12, 1988, the Asis spouses sold the property to the Frogozo spouses, resulting in a new title being issued in the latter's name. This new title still carried the annotation of ERDI's notice of levy. Procedural History: The Frogozo spouses filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila on March 4, 1988, seeking the cancellation of ERDI's notice of levy. The RTC granted this petition. ERDI appealed the RTC's order to the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning whether the RTC erred in ordering the cancellation. The CA, after the parties filed their respective pleadings, denied ERDI's appeal on March 12, 1997, ruling that the issues raised were pure questions of law and thus not reviewable by the CA. The Petition: ERDI filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in considering the respondents' rejoinders without resolving ERDI's motions to expunge and in dismissing its appeal on the ground that the issues were purely legal. ERDI contended that its adverse claim, annotated on January 17, 1983, was only effective for thirty days and that the notice of levy was validly annotated. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the CA's decision, holding that the issues raised were indeed pure questions of law and that, based on prior rulings, an adverse claim does not automatically lose its force after thirty days without a judicial cancellation, and that the notice of levy was improperly annotated as it exceeded the scope of the writ of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not resolving ERDI's motions to expunge. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing ERDI's appeal for lack of jurisdiction over pure questions of law. Whether the RTC erred in ordering the cancellation of the annotation of ERDI's notice of levy because the writ of execution specified only "goods and chattels" and whether the notice of levy could prevail over the subsisting adverse claim.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The ruling of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' handling of motions to expunge: The Court held that ERDI's contention that the CA erred in considering the rejoinders without resolving the motions to expunge had no merit. Although the CA did not expressly resolve the motions, it tacitly denied them by rendering its Decision. By proceeding to decide the case, the appellate court, in effect, considered the rejoinders as properly and reasonably filed. On the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction over pure questions of law: The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of the appeal. Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 vests appellate jurisdiction in the CA over final decisions and orders of RTCs, except those involving only questions of law, which fall under the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. The issues raised by ERDI, concerning the effectivity of an adverse claim and the validity of a levy on execution, were determined to be pure questions of law because the facts of the case were not in dispute. Therefore, the appeal was erroneously brought before the CA. On the cancellation of the notice of levy: The Court found that the RTC did not err in ordering the cancellation of ERDI's notice of levy. The writ of execution under which the levy was made specified only "goods and chattels" of the judgment debtors, not real property. Therefore, the levy on the real property was in excess of the sheriff's authority, as the sheriff's duty is ministerial and must strictly follow the writ. Even if the writ had covered real property, the notice of levy could not prevail over the subsisting adverse claim annotated at the instance of the Frogozos, as the levy is subject to existing liens or encumbrances. The Court reiterated its ruling in Sajonas v. Court of Appeals that an adverse claim remains effective even after thirty days from registration until it is cancelled by a court order. The provision in Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529 stating that an adverse claim "may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefore by the party in interest" after thirty days implies that cancellation is a necessary step to render the adverse claim ineffective.
Main Doctrine
An adverse claim annotated on a certificate of title remains effective until it is cancelled by a court order, even after the lapse of thirty days from its registration. A notice of levy on execution, if not properly authorized by the writ of execution, may be cancelled. The duty of a sheriff in executing a writ is ministerial and strictly to the letter of the writ.