Alberto v. Heirs of Panti
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a parcel of land located in Calatagan, Virac, Catanduanes, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 157. The Heirs of Juan A. Panti (Heirs of Panti) are the registered owners of this land. Rosita U. Alberto (Alberto) caused an Affidavit of Adverse Claim to be annotated on OCT No. 157, asserting that her family had purchased the property from the Heirs of Panti in 1966 and that they held it in trust. The Heirs of Panti contested this, arguing that no deed of sale was executed, only partial payment receipts were provided, and the transaction occurred within the five-year prohibition period following the issuance of a free patent. Alberto maintained that her family had been in open and peaceful possession of the property for over 40 years and had paid the real property taxes, thus warranting the annotation of the adverse claim to protect their interests. Procedural History: The Heirs of Panti filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel Alberto's adverse claim. Initially, the RTC denied the petition, finding the adverse claim to be proper and based on factual and legal grounds. However, upon appeal by the Heirs of Panti, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, remanding the case for a trial to determine the validity of the adverse claim. After conducting a trial, the RTC again denied the petition to cancel the adverse claim, reiterating its finding of a valid claim by Alberto. The Heirs of Panti appealed this decision to the CA. The CA, this time, granted the appeal, reversed the RTC's ruling, and ordered the cancellation of the adverse claim. Alberto sought reconsideration, but the CA denied her motion. Consequently, Alberto filed the present Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Before the Supreme Court, Alberto seeks to reverse the CA's decision through a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. She argues that the CA failed to consider the evidence of her family's five-decade-long exclusive possession of the property and the Heirs of Panti's inaction, asserting that laches had set in. Alberto also highlights her continuous payment of real property taxes and the maintenance of the property. The Heirs of Panti, in their comment, counter that the CA correctly cancelled the adverse claim due to the non-payment of the full purchase price and because Alberto's claim was based on prescription and adverse possession, which are not valid grounds for an adverse claim. The core of Alberto's petition is that her adverse claim should be upheld, asserting that the CA erred in its findings and conclusions.
Issue(s)
Whether there is a basis to cancel the affidavit of adverse claim executed by Alberto and annotated on the title to the subject property; including whether the alleged sale and contract to sell can serve as a basis for the adverse claim. Whether the adverse claim was properly registered under Section 70 of PD 1529; including whether the claim of implied trust was properly registered. Whether possession and payment of real property taxes, or the concept of laches, can serve as a basis for an adverse claim on registered land; including the applicability of prescription and adverse possession.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC ruling and granted the cancellation of the adverse claim, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the adverse claim and the alleged sale: The Court reiterated that an adverse claim may be registered under Section 70 of PD 1529 if a person claims an interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, and there is no other provision for registering such right. In this case, Alberto's adverse claim was anchored on a supposed sale resulting in an implied trust and on her family's possession and payment of real property taxes. However, PD 1529 provides a specific mechanism for registering implied trusts under Section 68. Since there was another provision for registration, an adverse claim under Section 70 was no longer appropriate. The Court emphasized that an adverse claim is only proper when there is no other provision in law for registering the claimant's right or interest. The Court found that Alberto failed to establish a perfected contract of sale. The acknowledgment receipts only indicated partial payments, and no deed of sale was executed. The property was also issued a free patent with a five-year prohibition on alienation, and the alleged sale occurred within this period, making it contrary to law. The CA correctly construed the arrangement as a contract to sell, where the non-fulfillment of the suspensive condition (full payment) prevented the perfection of the sale and the vendor's obligation to convey title. On the registration of the adverse claim and the basis of implied trust: The Court found that Alberto's claim of an implied trust, arising from the alleged purchase of the property, should have been registered under Section 68 of PD 1529, which specifically deals with implied or constructive trusts. The fact that there is a specific provision for registering implied trusts means that it cannot be registered as an adverse claim under the general provision of Section 70. This prevents the adverse claim from affecting the title of a purchaser for value and in good faith before its registration under Section 68. On possession, prescription, adverse possession, and laches: The Court clarified that Alberto could not register an adverse claim as the possessor of the subject property against the Heirs of Panti, who are the registered owners. This is because registered land is not subject to prescription or adverse possession under Section 47 of PD 1529. Therefore, an adverse claim based on these grounds would serve no useful purpose and could not validly or legally affect the property. The assertion of ownership based on prescription and adverse possession is not registrable as an adverse claim. Alberto's contention that the Heirs of Panti were guilty of laches due to their inaction for over forty years was dismissed. The Court noted that the adverse claim itself was not based on laches. Furthermore, the Court disallowed Alberto's change of theory on appeal, as the adverse claim was primarily based on the supposed purchase and implied trust, not on laches. The cited cases on laches, while discussing possession, did not deal with the specific issue of the propriety of an adverse claim annotation.
Main Doctrine
An adverse claim based on an alleged implied trust or possession and payment of real property taxes is not registrable under Section 70 of PD 1529 if there is another specific provision for registration of such interest, such as Section 68 for implied trusts. Furthermore, registered land cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.