Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 145 views

    Sajonas V CA

    Uploaded by

    samdelacruz1030
    1) A summary judgment is permitted only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2) The case involved a notice of levy on execution that was annotated on a title covering a parcel of land. The land was later sold to new owners, the Sajonas spouses. 3) The court ruled that the annotation of the Sajonas' adverse claim on the title was equivalent to notice and should be preferred over the notice of levy. The intention of the law was to allow adverse claims to remain annotated until cancelled, not just for 30 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sajonas V CA

    Uploaded by

    samdelacruz1030
    145 views2 pages
    1) A summary judgment is permitted only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2) The case involved a notice of levy on execution that was annotated on a title covering a parcel of land. The land was later sold to new owners, the Sajonas spouses. 3) The court ruled that the annotation of the Sajonas' adverse claim on the title was equivalent to notice and should be preferred over the notice of levy. The intention of the law was to allow adverse claims to remain annotated until cancelled, not just for 30 days.

    Original Description:

    ltd

    Original Title

    Sajonas v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A summary judgment is permitted only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2) The case involved a notice of levy on execution that was annotated on a title covering a parcel of land. The land was later sold to new owners, the Sajonas spouses. 3) The court ruled that the annotation of the Sajonas' adverse claim on the title was equivalent to notice and should be preferred over the notice of levy. The intention of the law was to allow adverse claims to remain annotated until cancelled, not just for 30 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    145 views2 pages

    Sajonas V CA

    Uploaded by

    samdelacruz1030
    1) A summary judgment is permitted only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2) The case involved a notice of levy on execution that was annotated on a title covering a parcel of land. The land was later sold to new owners, the Sajonas spouses. 3) The court ruled that the annotation of the Sajonas' adverse claim on the title was equivalent to notice and should be preferred over the notice of levy. The intention of the law was to allow adverse claims to remain annotated until cancelled, not just for 30 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [the]

    moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.( Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, Land
    Titles: Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals; July 5, 1996
    Facts:

    The case is for cancellation of the inscription of a Notice of Levy on Execution from a certificate
    of Title covering a parcel of real property. The inscription was caused to be made by the private
    respondent on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-79073 of the Register of Deeds of Marikina,
    issued in the name of the spouses Uychocde, and was later carried over to and annotated on
    Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-109417 of the same registry, issued in the name of the
    spouses Sajonas, who purchased the parcel of land from the Uychocdes, and are now the
    petitioners in this case.

    The subject property was bought by Sajonas spouses on September 1983 and caused the
    annotation of their adverse claim on August 1984. The Deed of Sale was executed upon the full
    payment of the purchase price and the same was registered only on August 1985.

    Meanwhile, without the petitioners' knowledge, there has been a compromise agreement between
    the spouses Uychocde and Pilares (Uychocde's judgment creditor), and a notice of levy on
    execution was issued on February 12, 1985. On February 12, 1985, defendant sheriff Roberto
    Garcia of Quezon City presented said notice of levy on execution before the Register of Deeds of
    Marikina and the same was annotated at the back of TCT No. 79073 as Entry No. 123283.

    Issue:
    Which should be preferred between the notice of levy on execution and the deed of absolute sale.
    The Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on September 4, 1984, but was registered only on
    August 28, 1985, while the notice of levy on execution was annotated six (6) months prior to the
    registration of the sale on February 12, 1985.

    Decision:
    The annotation of the adverse claim is equivalent to notice to third persons of the interest of the
    claimant. The provision of the law (PD 1529) that the adverse claim is only valid for 30 days
    cannot be upheld. Clearly, the intention of the law is otherwise as may be gleaned on the
    following discussion:
    Sec. 70 Adverse Claim- Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the
    registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other
    provision is made in this decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting
    forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the
    number of certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a
    description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.
    The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimants residence, and
    a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to
    registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for
    a period of thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation
    of adverse claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in
    interest: Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the same
    ground shall be registered by the same claimant.
    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 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. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the
    registration thereof shall be ordered cancelled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing
    shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an
    amount not less than one thousand pesos, nor more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion.
    Before the lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the
    Register of Deeds a sworn petition to that effect.

    Construing the provision as a whole would reconcile the apparent inconsistency between the
    portions of the law such that the provision on cancellation of adverse claim by verified petition
    would serve to qualify the provision on the effectivity period. The law, taken together, simply
    means that the cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective,
    otherwise, the inscription will remain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property.
    For if the adverse claim has already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of said period, its
    cancellation is no longer necessary and the process of cancellation would be a useless ceremony.

    To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as absolute and without qualification
    limited to thirty days defeats the very purpose for which the statute provides for the remedy of an
    inscription of adverse claim, as the annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to
    protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property where the registration of such
    interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now P.D.
    1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves as a warning to third parties dealing with
    said property that someone is claiming an interest or the same or a better right than the registered
    owner thereof.

    Petition was granted. The inscription of the notice of levy on execution on TCT No. N-109417 is
    ordered CANCELLED.

    You might also like