Lawyerly

GR No. 120051

2014-12-10

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Second, the construction adopted by the Court gives effect to both Sections 133(j) and 143(h) of the LGC. In construing a law, care should be taken that every part thereof be given effect and a construction that could render a provision inoperative should be avoided, and inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a harmonious whole.[73]

GR No. 192398

2014-09-29

CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

A statute is passed as a whole and not in parts or sections, and is animated by one general purpose and intent. Consequently, each part or section should be construed in connection with every other part or section so as to produce a harmonious whole. It is not proper to confine its intention to the one section construed. It is always an unsafe way of construing a statute or contract to divide it by a process of etymological dissection, into separate words, and then apply to each, thus separated from the context, some particular meaning to be attached to any word or phrase usually to be ascertained from the context.[19]

GR No. 173171

2012-07-11

PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. NEW DAGUPAN METRO GAS CORPORATION

REYES, J.

A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property.[39] Good faith is the opposite of fraud and of bad faith, and its non-existence must be established by competent proof.[40] Sans such proof, a buyer is deemed to be in good faith and his interest in the subject property will not be disturbed. A purchaser of a registered property can rely on the guarantee afforded by pertinent laws on registration that he can take and hold it free from any and all prior liens and claims except those set forth in or preserved against the certificate of title.[41]

GR No. 186094

2010-08-23

PACIENCIA A. DALEON v. MA. CATALINA P. TAN

ABAD, J.

Here, the Daleons assumed that they were ready to hand over a clean title to the Tans had the latter not placed a stop payment order on their checks. This was not the case. The Tans had to place that stop payment for a valid reason. They agreed to buy the property believing that the seller's title was unblemished by any lien or unfavorable claim. Bartolome Sy's adverse claim, which came shortly after the execution of the contract and the initial payment to the Daleons of P10.861 million, was certainly distressing. Its annotation on the title served as warning to third parties like the Tans that someone claimed an interest or a better right to the property than the registered owner.[17] Certainly, the Tans were justified in placing a stop payment order on their checks to avoid greater loss since it may be assumed that they did not want to buy such an expensive property that had a cloud on its title.

GR No. 166536

2010-02-04

FLOR MARTINEZ v. ERNESTO G. GARCIA

PERALTA, J.

Respondent Garcia's adverse claim, which refers to the deed of mortgage executed by respondent Brua in his favor, was annotated on respondent Brua's title registered with the Registry of Deeds of Rizal on June 23, 1980 as Entry No. 49853. The adverse claim was already existing when the Notice of Levy on Execution, as well as the Certificate of Sale in favor of petitioner, was inscribed on July 11, 1988 and September 2, 1988, respectively; and, hence, the adverse claim is sufficient to constitute constructive notice to petitioner regarding the subject property. When petitioner registered her Notice of Levy on Execution on the title of the subject property, she was charged with the knowledge that the subject property sought to be levied upon on execution was encumbered by an interest the same as or better than that of the registered owner thereof.[34] Thus, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the CA when it held that the notice of levy and subsequent sale of the subject property could not prevail over respondent Garcia's existing adverse claim inscribed on respondent Brua's certificate of title.

GR No. 156076

2008-09-17

SPS. JESUS CHING AND LEE POE TIN v. SPS. ADOLFO AND ARSENIA ENRILE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

At the outset, the Court finds that the CA committed reversible error when it ruled that the annotated adverse claim had already prescribed by the mere lapse of 30 days from its registration. The issue is no longer of first impression. In the 1996 case of Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,[9] we explained that a notice of adverse claim remains valid even after the lapse of the 30-day period provided by Section 70 of PD 1529. Section 70 provides: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 the certificate of title of the registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.

GR NO. 142687

2006-07-20

SPS. FRANCISCO v. CA

PUNO, J.

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision of the trial court. Citing the ruling in Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,[12] the appellate court held that respondents Barrameda's adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title was still effective at the time the property was levied on execution. It said:Therefore, the disputed inscription of adverse claim on TCT No. 83612/57286 was still in effect on July 13, 1992 when the Rodriguezes caused the annotation of the notice of levy on execution thereto. Consequently, they are charged with knowledge that the property sought to be levied upon on execution was encumbered by an interest the same as or better than that of the registered owner thereof. Such notice of levy cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title in favor of the Barramedas. xxx

GR No. 159212

2005-09-12

NAVOTAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. CRUZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.

For their part, the respondents aver that the petitioner had constructive notice of the said sale, based on the inscription of the affidavit of adverse claim on June 29, 1977 at the dorsal portion of TCT No. 81574. Besides, the respondents posit, Cipriano Bautista even admitted having known of the said adverse claim before the July 30, 1977 Contract of Lease and Supplementary Lease Agreement were registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. The respondents cited the ruling of this Court in Sajonas v. Court of Appeals[36] to support their claim.

GR NO. 136211

2005-03-31

HEIRS OF VICENTE HIDALGO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In answer to this, the respondent cites the case of Sajonas v. Court of Appeals[12] where we ruled that it is the act of registration that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land which is titled under the Torrens System.[13] In this case, we held: Under the Torrens system, registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. A person dealing with registered land is not required to go behind the register to determine the condition of the property. He is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property which are noted on the face of the register or certificates of title.[14]

GR No. 128563

2004-03-25

EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. SPS. DESIDERIO AND EDARLINA FROGOZO

TINGA, J,

This Court rejected these same contentions in Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,[9] thus: Noting the changes made in the terminology of the provisions of the law, private respondent interpreted this to mean that a Notice of Adverse Claim remains effective only for a period of 30 days from its annotation, and automatically loses its force afterwards. Private respondent further maintains that the notice of adverse claim was annotated on August 27, 1984, hence, it will be effective only up to September 26, 1984, after which it will no longer have any binding force and effect pursuant to Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529….

	GR No. 120051 2014-12-10	CITY OF MANILA v. ANGEL VALERA COLET LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Second, the construction adopted by the Court gives effect to both Sections 133(j) and 143(h) of the LGC. In construing a law, care should be taken that every part thereof be given effect and a construction that could render a provision inoperative should be avoided, and inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a harmonious whole.[73]
	GR No. 192398 2014-09-29	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A statute is passed as a whole and not in parts or sections, and is animated by one general purpose and intent. Consequently, each part or section should be construed in connection with every other part or section so as to produce a harmonious whole. It is not proper to confine its intention to the one section construed. It is always an unsafe way of construing a statute or contract to divide it by a process of etymological dissection, into separate words, and then apply to each, thus separated from the context, some particular meaning to be attached to any word or phrase usually to be ascertained from the context.[19]
	GR No. 173171 2012-07-11	PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. NEW DAGUPAN METRO GAS CORPORATION REYES, J.
A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property.[39] Good faith is the opposite of fraud and of bad faith, and its non-existence must be established by competent proof.[40] Sans such proof, a buyer is deemed to be in good faith and his interest in the subject property will not be disturbed. A purchaser of a registered property can rely on the guarantee afforded by pertinent laws on registration that he can take and hold it free from any and all prior liens and claims except those set forth in or preserved against the certificate of title.[41]
	GR No. 186094 2010-08-23	PACIENCIA A. DALEON v. MA. CATALINA P. TAN ABAD, J.
Here, the Daleons assumed that they were ready to hand over a clean title to the Tans had the latter not placed a stop payment order on their checks. This was not the case. The Tans had to place that stop payment for a valid reason. They agreed to buy the property believing that the seller's title was unblemished by any lien or unfavorable claim. Bartolome Sy's adverse claim, which came shortly after the execution of the contract and the initial payment to the Daleons of P10.861 million, was certainly distressing. Its annotation on the title served as warning to third parties like the Tans that someone claimed an interest or a better right to the property than the registered owner.[17] Certainly, the Tans were justified in placing a stop payment order on their checks to avoid greater loss since it may be assumed that they did not want to buy such an expensive property that had a cloud on its title.
	GR No. 166536 2010-02-04	FLOR MARTINEZ v. ERNESTO G. GARCIA PERALTA, J.
Respondent Garcia's adverse claim, which refers to the deed of mortgage executed by respondent Brua in his favor, was annotated on respondent Brua's title registered with the Registry of Deeds of Rizal on June 23, 1980 as Entry No. 49853. The adverse claim was already existing when the Notice of Levy on Execution, as well as the Certificate of Sale in favor of petitioner, was inscribed on July 11, 1988 and September 2, 1988, respectively; and, hence, the adverse claim is sufficient to constitute constructive notice to petitioner regarding the subject property. When petitioner registered her Notice of Levy on Execution on the title of the subject property, she was charged with the knowledge that the subject property sought to be levied upon on execution was encumbered by an interest the same as or better than that of the registered owner thereof.[34] Thus, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the CA when it held that the notice of levy and subsequent sale of the subject property could not prevail over respondent Garcia's existing adverse claim inscribed on respondent Brua's certificate of title.
	GR No. 156076 2008-09-17	SPS. JESUS CHING AND LEE POE TIN v. SPS. ADOLFO AND ARSENIA ENRILE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
At the outset, the Court finds that the CA committed reversible error when it ruled that the annotated adverse claim had already prescribed by the mere lapse of 30 days from its registration. The issue is no longer of first impression. In the 1996 case of Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,[9] we explained that a notice of adverse claim remains valid even after the lapse of the 30-day period provided by Section 70 of PD 1529. Section 70 provides: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 the certificate of title of the registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.
	GR NO. 142687 2006-07-20	SPS. FRANCISCO v. CA PUNO, J.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision of the trial court. Citing the ruling in Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,[12] the appellate court held that respondents Barrameda's adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title was still effective at the time the property was levied on execution. It said:Therefore, the disputed inscription of adverse claim on TCT No. 83612/57286 was still in effect on July 13, 1992 when the Rodriguezes caused the annotation of the notice of levy on execution thereto. Consequently, they are charged with knowledge that the property sought to be levied upon on execution was encumbered by an interest the same as or better than that of the registered owner thereof. Such notice of levy cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title in favor of the Barramedas. xxx
	GR No. 159212 2005-09-12	NAVOTAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
For their part, the respondents aver that the petitioner had constructive notice of the said sale, based on the inscription of the affidavit of adverse claim on June 29, 1977 at the dorsal portion of TCT No. 81574. Besides, the respondents posit, Cipriano Bautista even admitted having known of the said adverse claim before the July 30, 1977 Contract of Lease and Supplementary Lease Agreement were registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. The respondents cited the ruling of this Court in Sajonas v. Court of Appeals[36] to support their claim.
	GR NO. 136211 2005-03-31	HEIRS OF VICENTE HIDALGO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In answer to this, the respondent cites the case of Sajonas v. Court of Appeals[12] where we ruled that it is the act of registration that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land which is titled under the Torrens System.[13] In this case, we held: Under the Torrens system, registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. A person dealing with registered land is not required to go behind the register to determine the condition of the property. He is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property which are noted on the face of the register or certificates of title.[14]
	GR No. 128563 2004-03-25	EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. SPS. DESIDERIO AND EDARLINA FROGOZO TINGA, J,
This Court rejected these same contentions in Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,[9] thus: Noting the changes made in the terminology of the provisions of the law, private respondent interpreted this to mean that a Notice of Adverse Claim remains effective only for a period of 30 days from its annotation, and automatically loses its force afterwards. Private respondent further maintains that the notice of adverse claim was annotated on August 27, 1984, hence, it will be effective only up to September 26, 1984, after which it will no longer have any binding force and effect pursuant to Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529….

ALFREDO SAJONAS v. CA