Alberto vs. Heirs of Panti

An adverse claim under Section 70 of the Property Registration Decree may not be registered if another provision of the same law provides for the registration of the claimant's specific interest, such as an implied trust under Section 68, or if the claim is based on prescription or adverse possession over registered land, which is barred by Section 47.

Rosita U. Alberto (Alberto) is one of the heirs of the late Spouses Jose M. Alberto and Rosita U. Alberto, who allegedly purchased a 16,210-square-meter parcel of land in Calatagan, Virac, Catanduanes, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 157, from the Heirs of Juan A. Panti (Heirs of Panti) in 1966. The Heirs of Panti remained the registered owners of the property, holding the owner's duplicate copy of the title. In 2008, Alberto caused the annotation of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on OCT No. 157 to protect her family's alleged interest, prompting the Heirs of Panti to file a petition for the cancellation of the adverse claim.

The dispute centers on a parcel of land in Calatagan, Virac, Catanduanes, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 157 registered under the name of the Heirs of Juan A. Panti (Heirs of Panti), represented by Lydia B. Panti. Rosita U. Alberto (Alberto) claims that her parents, the late Spouses Jose M. Alberto and Rosita U. Alberto, purchased the property from the Heirs of Panti in 1966. According to Alberto, the sale was evidenced by two acknowledgment receipts for partial payments dated June 12, 1966, and July 28, 1966, and the Heirs of Panti thereafter held the title in trust for her family. Alberto's family took open and peaceful possession of the property, paying real property taxes and assigning a caretaker who planted trees and installed a wire fence.

The Heirs of Panti disputed the alleged sale, pointing out that no deed of sale was ever executed. They noted that the free patent for the property was issued on January 15, 1965, carrying a five-year prohibition on alienation, and that Alberto's receipts were dated within this prohibited period. Consequently, they argued the supposed sale was contrary to law and void. The Heirs of Panti retained physical possession of OCT No. 157 throughout this period.

On May 19, 2008, more than forty years after the alleged partial payments, Alberto executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim and caused its annotation on OCT No. 157. The affidavit asserted an interest based on the 1966 sale, a resulting implied trust, and the Alberto family's long-standing possession and tax payments. In response, the Heirs of Panti filed a Petition for Cancellation of the adverse claim before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes. The RTC initially denied the petition, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), which remanded the case for trial. After receiving evidence, the RTC again denied the cancellation, but the CA ultimately reversed the RTC, finding that Alberto had no valid enforceable claim to support the adverse claim annotation.

• Implied Trust and Sale: Alberto argued that her parents purchased the subject property from the Heirs of Panti in 1966, resulting in an implied trust, and that their family had been in open, peaceful, and exclusive possession of the property for over 40 years, paying real property taxes, which warranted the annotation of the adverse claim.
• Laches: Alberto maintained that the Heirs of Panti were guilty of laches due to their more than forty-year delay in asserting their right to recover the property, and that this delay serves as a sufficient basis for the annotation of the adverse claim on the title.

• Failure to Pay: The Heirs of Panti countered that Alberto failed to fully pay the purchase price, preventing the perfection of the contract of sale and the transfer of ownership.
• Invalidity of Adverse Claim: Respondents argued that Alberto's adverse claim of ownership was based on prescription and adverse possession, which could not validly and legally affect the registered land, meaning she failed to show an enforceable claim or interest that could properly be registered as an adverse claim.

• Validity of Adverse Claim: Whether there is a basis to cancel the affidavit of adverse claim executed by Alberto and annotated on the title to the subject property.
• Laches: Whether the Heirs of Panti's alleged failure to assert their rights for over forty years constitutes laches that would justify the annotation of the adverse claim.

• Validity of Adverse Claim: Yes. The adverse claim was properly cancelled because Alberto's interest, if any, should have been registered under Section 68 of PD 1529 (implied trusts) and not as an adverse claim under Section 70, and because prescription does not run against registered land under Section 47.
• Laches: No. The defense of laches cannot be sustained as a basis for the adverse claim because it was a new theory raised for the first time on appeal, and the adverse claim itself was expressly anchored on the supposed sale and implied trust, not laches.

• Validity of Adverse Claim: Section 70 of PD 1529 allows an adverse claim only if no other provision in the Decree provides for the registration of the claimant's right. Alberto's adverse claim was based on an implied trust resulting from an alleged sale. Section 68 of PD 1529 specifically provides the mechanism for registering implied or constructive trusts by filing a sworn statement with the Register of Deeds. Therefore, she could not register it as an adverse claim. Additionally, her claim based on possession and prescription is invalid against registered land, as Section 47 of PD 1529 states that no title to registered land in derogation of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. An adverse claim based on prescription serves no useful purpose and cannot legally affect the parcel of land.
• Laches: Alberto raised laches as a new theory on appeal, which the Court cannot sustain. Furthermore, the cases cited by Alberto (Heirs of Panganiban and De Tirona) involved a petition for cancellation of title with quieting of title and an accion publiciana, respectively, neither of which dealt with the propriety of an adverse claim annotated on a land title. A reading of the Affidavit of Adverse Claim shows it was based on the supposed purchase and implied trust, not laches. For these reasons, the Court cannot give merit to Alberto's change of theory on appeal.

• Adverse Claim under Section 70 of PD 1529 — An adverse claim is a remedy available only when no other provision in the Property Registration Decree provides for the registration of the claimant's right or interest in registered land. It is designed to protect an interest during the pendency of a controversy where registration is not otherwise provided for.
• Implied Trust Registration — Under Section 68 of PD 1529, a person claiming an interest in registered land by reason of an implied or constructive trust must register it by filing a sworn statement with the Register of Deeds, not through an adverse claim under Section 70.
• Indefeasibility of Torrens Title — Under Section 47 of PD 1529, no title to registered land in derogation of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. An adverse claim based on prescription serves no useful purpose and cannot legally affect registered land.

• "Indeed, an adverse claim is only proper if there is no other provision in the law for the registration of the claimant's alleged right or interest in the property." — This defines the strict condition for the availability of an adverse claim under the Property Registration Decree.
• "Because the subject property is a registered land, no title in derogation to that of the registered owner may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Indeed, an adverse claim would serve no useful purpose because it could not validly and legally affect the parcel of land in question." — This explains why claims based on adverse possession cannot be annotated as adverse claims on Torrens titles.

• Logarta vs. Mangahis, 789 Phil. 244 (2016) — Cited to define the purpose of an adverse claim as a mechanism to protect an interest over real property by apprising third persons of a controversy over its ownership.
• Heirs of Panganiban vs. Dayrit, 502 Phil. 612 (2005) and Bartola M. Vda. De Tirona vs. Encarnacion, 560 Phil. 650 (2007) — Cited by the petitioner regarding laches but distinguished by the Court because they involved quieting of title and accion publiciana, not the propriety of an adverse claim.

• Section 70, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Governs the registration of adverse claims on registered land, providing that it is available only if no other provision in the Decree allows for the registration of the right or interest. The adverse claim is effective for 30 days, after which it may be cancelled via a verified petition.
• Section 68, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Provides the specific procedure for registering claims based on implied or constructive trusts, which precludes the use of an adverse claim for such interests.
• Section 47, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Declares that registered land is not subject to prescription or adverse possession, invalidating adverse claims based on these grounds.

Caguioa, (Chairperson), Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concur.