GR 260831; (February, 2025) (Digest)
G.R. No. 260831 , February 26, 2025
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, vs. PATRICIO B. BELLA, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Respondent Patricio B. Bella is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Imus City, Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 057-2011014198. The title contained two annotations: (1) an encumbrance pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26 , noting that the title was administratively reconstituted on October 18, 1960, without prejudice to parties whose rights were noted in the original; and (2) an Affidavit of Adverse Claim executed by Geronimo B. Bella and Eduardo B. Bella, annotated on May 31, 1996. On June 21, 2019, Bella filed a Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). He argued that the Section 7 encumbrance should be cancelled as the two-year statutory period from the 1960 reconstitution had lapsed with no claims presented. He also sought cancellation of the adverse claim, contending it was no longer valid after 30 days from its 1996 annotation and that the claimants, who had sold the property to him in 2011, were deceased. The RTC granted the petition. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing non-compliance with the publication requirement under Section 9 of R.A. No. 26 and that the heirs of the deceased adverse claimants should have been notified. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the publication requirement applied only to petitions filed within the two-year period, and Bella’s filing, though captioned as a petition, was effectively a motion ex parte as it was filed beyond that period. The Republic elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Did the RTC err in ordering the cancellation of the adverse claim?
RULING
The Petition is partly meritorious. The Court ruled on the two annotations separately. Regarding the first annotation (the Section 7, R.A. No. 26 encumbrance), the RTC did not err. The express language of Section 9 of R.A. No. 26 provides that after two years from the date of reconstitution, if no petition for annotation of a right has been filed, the court shall, on motion ex parte, order the cancellation of the encumbrance. The reconstitution occurred in 1960, and Bella sought cancellation in 2019, well beyond the two-year period. Thus, the RTC correctly ordered its cancellation.
However, the RTC erred in ordering the cancellation of the second annotation (the adverse claim). An adverse claim under Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 remains effective for 30 days from its registration. Its cancellation is governed by specific grounds under the law, such as the claim being unmeritorious or its validity having expired. The RTC’s sole basis for cancellation was the lapse of the 30-day period and the death of the claimants. The Court found this insufficient. The death of the claimants does not automatically extinguish the claim; it may be pursued by their heirs. The records did not show that the heirs were properly notified or given an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the adverse claim. Therefore, the order for its cancellation was set aside. The case was remanded to the RTC to determine the merits of the adverse claim, with proper notice to the heirs of the deceased claimants.