Martinez v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edilberto Brua owned land in Mandaluyong under TCT No. 346026, mortgaged to GSIS (Entry No. 91370, June 5, 1974). On February 5, 1980, Brua borrowed P150,000 from brother-in-law Ernesto Garcia, securing it with a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage; unable to register due to GSIS holding title, Garcia annotated an Affidavit of Adverse Claim (Entry No. 49853, June 23, 1980), which subsisted. In October 1991, Brua asked Garcia to pay his P400,000 GSIS arrearages; Garcia complied, obtaining title release. On October 22, 1991, Brua executed a Deed of Absolute Sale to Garcia for P705,000, stating it as partial payment of unredeemable mortgage debt; registered October 24, 1991, yielding TCT No. 5204 to Garcia and wife, carrying over annotations including Martinez's Notice of Levy on Attachment/Execution (Entry No. 56837, Jan 8, 1981; No. 2881, July 11, 1988), Certificate of Sale (No. 3706, Sept 2, 1988) from Civil Case No. 39633 (Martinez v. Brua, final judgment for P244,594.10, auction at P10,000 to Martinez as sole bidder), and Pilipinas Bank's Levy (No. 72854, Dec 8, 1981). These arose from Brua's debts; Garcia's adverse claim predated all. Procedural History: February 9, 1994, Garcia and Brua filed Quiet Title action (Spec. Civ. Act. No. 574, RTC Pasig Br. 267) vs. Martinez (later adding Pilipinas Bank) to cancel liens post-1980 adverse claim. RTC (April 15, 1998) dismissed, upholding liens as superior, finding Garcia bad faith buyer, awarding P50,000 attorney's fees each to defendants; MR denied Aug 11, 1998. CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 61591): Reversed Aug 12, 2004, canceling Entries 72854, 2881, 3706 per Sajonas; MR denied Nov 18, 2004. Brua's appeal abandoned sans brief. The Petition: Martinez filed certiorari (Rule 65) Jan 24, 2005, alleging grave abuse: Garcia's adverse claim merely mortgage notice inferior to final execution sale; distinguishes Sajonas (contract to sell vs. mortgage); admits lien duty but claims priority; RTC found bad faith. Garcia: Rule 45 lapsed, no abuse, prior claim prevails. SC: Dismissed petition, affirmed CA.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the CA decision reversing RTC, considering the availability of a Rule 45 appeal. Whether Garcia's 1980 adverse claim prevails over Martinez's 1981-1988 levy and sale annotations, warranting cancellation upon quiet title.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 12, 2004 and Resolution dated November 18, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61591 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Certiorari Improper Remedy): Petitioner erroneously availed certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a Rule 45 petition for review, which lapsed 15 days from the Nov 24, 2004 notice of CA MR denial (due Dec 9, 2004), filing instead Jan 24, 2005. Rule 45 governs appeals from CA final decisions/resolutions regardless of case nature, as a continuation of the appellate process (Land Bank v. CA). Certiorari lies only for grave abuse (capricious/whimsical equivalent to lack/excess jurisdiction) absent appeal or adequate remedy (Rule 65, Sec. 1); here, appeal was plain/speedy/adequate and not a substitute for a lost appeal (Intl. Exchange Bank v. CA; Abedes v. CA). Errors in wisdom/soundness (e.g., varying RTC findings) are judgment errors for appeal, not certiorari (Jan Dec Construction v. CA). No exceptions apply (public welfare, justice, null writs, oppression) sans explanation for bypassing appeal or showing unraisable issues therein. Even assuming granted, no grave abuse shown—mere errors not enough (Buntag v. Paña). On Issue 2 (Adverse Claim Priority): Garcia's adverse claim (Entry 49853, June 23, 1980, on P150,000 mortgage) predated Martinez's levy (1981/1988) and sale (1988), providing constructive notice; levy creates a lien only on the obligor's interest subject to pre-existing liens (Rule 39, Sec. 12; Paras/Francisco commentaries). The adverse claim warns of equal/superior interests (PD 1529, Sec. 70; Sajonas v. CA), valid sans cancellation petition. Martinez was not a good faith buyer: saw the claim on cross-exam, paid P10,000 unfairly (Diaz-Duarte v. Ong); the sheriff is charged with title knowledge. RTC erred on bad faith (presumed good absent proof); the 1991 sale was a partial mortgage payment, rooted in the 1980 deed, superior to junior liens. Sajonas applied: levy cannot prevail over an existing claim (there contract to sell; here mortgage, same principle). Thus, CA correctly canceled annotations, quieting Garcia's title.
Main Doctrine
An adverse claim duly annotated on a certificate of title constitutes constructive notice to subsequent parties, including judgment creditors effecting levies on execution, and remains valid beyond 30 days unless canceled via court order, as affirmed in Sajonas v. CA. Under Sec. 12, Rule 39, Rules of Court, a levy on execution creates a lien only over the judgment obligor's interest subject to pre-existing liens and encumbrances, such as prior mortgages evidenced by adverse claims. Thus, notices of levy and certificates of sale inscribed after an adverse claim are subordinate and must yield upon quieting of title. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing a CA decision is dismissible if Rule 45 appeal was available but lost, as certiorari corrects only jurisdictional errors or grave abuse, not judgment errors. Purchasers at execution sales, even sole bidders, cannot claim good faith if prior annotations put them on notice of superior interests. The annotation warns third parties of claims equal or superior to the registered owner's, preserving the claimant's priority without need for actual registration of the underlying interest.