On January 4, 1960, petitioner herein  Elisa D. Gabriel, filed  with  the Register of Deeds of  Manila, an Adverse claim, against the properties registered in  the name  of oppositor-appellant, Juanita R.  Domingo,  her sister.  As grounds for the adverse claim, petitioner allege

"Notwithstanding  the registration of  the foregoing properties in the name of Juanita  R. Domingo, the  same properties have been included in the amended   inventory  of  the estate  of the late Antonia Reyes Vda.  de Domingo, filed by Elisa Domingo de Gabriel ^[1] as they are  in fact  properties acquired by the deceased during her, lifetime.  The registration of the titles  of  these properties  should have been made in  the name of  said Antonia  Reyes Vda. de Domingo, but  due  to  commission  of fraud  and   deceit,  by said Juanita R. Domingo, who was then living in the same house with the deceased, all the  titles  of the above  stated properties were registered instead  in  her name, thus  depriving  herein adverse claimant who is  likewise  an heir of Antonia  Reyes Vda. de Domingo, of her lawful rights, interests and participations over said properties."

On the same date, a  similar notice of adverse claim was presented  by  petitioner with the  Register  of  Deeds  of Rizal, on the properties registered in the name of  Juanita R.  Domingo, located  in  Rizal Province,  the  ground for which was  stated as follows

"The foregoing properties are included  in  the amended inventory of the estate of their late mother Antonia Reyes  Vda., de Domingo, who is the true owner of said  properties, and considering that the registrations  in  the  name of Juanita R.  Domingo were only made fraudulently, thus depriving herein adverse  claimant of her   lawful rights, interest and  participations over said properties."

For the  adverse  claim  on  the  Manila  properties, Domingo presented an opposition,  claiming that the  adverse claim was  instituted  for  (1)  Harassment;  (2) Had no legal  basis; and (3) Had  done and will do   irreparable loss to her.

Special Proceeding No. 2658 CFI of Rizal, still pending.

The Register of Deeds of Manila, elevated the matter to the Land Registration Commission en Consulta, wherein he stated

"Because the undersigned is in doubt  as to whether the  registration of the claim is proper under the circumstances, the same is hereby submitted for  proper determination by this Commission." Oppositor Domingo  also asked that the  adverse claim of Gabriel  on  her Rizal properties  be denied,  contending that same was  presented only to embarrass  her; that said properties  were acquired by her pursuant to  an extrajudicial partition in which the  petitioner  Gabriel and  their mother (Antonio),  were signatories.

On  January  13,  1960,  the Register of Deeds of  Rizal denied  registration of  the  Notice  of Adverse  Claim, stating

"P.E. No.  90080-NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM has/have been found to be legally defective or  otherwise not sufficient in  law and is/are,  therefore, hereby   denied on  the following  ground: 'Where there are other  provisions or remedies under this act, the affidavit of adverse claim is not applicable."

Under date of January 21, 1960, Elisa D. Gabriel appealed the above denial to the  Land  Registration Commission.

On February 17,  1960, the  Register of Deeds of Rizal, in his letter transmitting the case to the  LRC, tried to justify his denial to annotate the affidavit of Adverse claim, by pointing out that such procedure was not proper, contending that  petitioner's case does not  come  under  the provisions  of Section 110 of  Act 496.   If at all, he claims, petitioner should have availed of Section 98 thereof. On March 7, 1960,  the LRC  heard the two cases, and before any of the parties  could  file his memorandum,  the Register of Deeds  of Rizal,  presented a  Supplemental Memorandum, reiterating his stand. In his reply,  Gabriel clarified the issue,  stating  that the question, at  bar concerns the fraudulent registration by oppositor, of  the properties  subject of  the Adverse Claims, and not  their fraudulent  acquisition.

The Land  Registration Commission, on April 29,  1960, issued a resolution,  the pertinent portions of which  are reproduced hereinbelow

"The only question to be resolved by  this Commission in these related consultas is the registration of the two notices of adverse claim  filed  with the Registries of  Manila and  Rizal.  Whether or not  these adverse  claims  are  valid,  whether  or not  they  are frivolous  and   merely intended to  harass, and  such  other litigatious matters raised by  the protagonist, are  for a court of competent jurisdiction, and not for this Commission,  to decide.

Sec. 110. of Act No. 496,  provides that

"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  Act for registering  the same, make a  statement in writing  setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, and a  reference to the  volume  and page  of the certificate of title 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 claimant's residence, and  designate a place at  which all  notices  may be served  upon   him.  This  statement  shall  be entitled to registration  as an adverse  claim,, and  the court, upon petition of  any party  in interest,  shall  grant  a  specific  hearing upon the  question of the validity of such adverse  claim and shall enter  such  decree therein as justice  and  equity may require.  If the claim is adjudged to be invalid, the  registration  shall be cancelled.   If in any  case  the court  after  notice  and   hearing shall find  that  a claim  thus  registered  was frivolous or  vexatious,  it may tax  the  adverse claimant,  double or treble the costs in its discretion.

It is believed  that the two  notices of adverse  claim filed in both registries  substantially comply with the above  requirements.  And under  paragraph 5  of LRC Circular  No. 2,  dated July 10, 1954, 'where the  document sought  to  be registered  is sufficient in law and drawn up in accordance with existing requirements, it  becomes incumbent upon the  Register of  Deeds to perform his  ministerial duty without unnecessary delay.

The   registration  of  an  invalid  adverse claim  will  not do  so much harm as  the  non-registration of a valid  one.   The notation of an  adverse  claim,  like that of  lis pendens,  does  not  create a non-existent right  or lien  and  only means that a  person  who purchases or contracts  on the property  in dispute does so subject to the  result or outcome of  the dispute. * * *.

*              *              *              *              *              *              *     

In view of the foregoing facts and considerations,  this Commission is of the opinion, and so holds, that the notices  of adverse claim filed by Elisa D. Gabriel with the Registries of Manila and Rizal are registrable.  Registration  should  not however  be  confused with validity.  The  registration  of the  adverse claims will not by itself alone make them valid. Their validity will be ultimately be decided  in Special Proceeding  No. 2658 or, in the alternative, in the more expeditious remedy  provided for in Sec. 110 of Act No.  496., i.e., a speedy hearing  upon  the question  of the validity of  the adverse claim."

Oppositor Domingo moved for a  reconsideration of the above order, contending, in the main, that a  Register of Deed exercises some degree of judicial  power to determine upon his own responsibility, the  legality of instruments brought  before  him for  registration.  In  other  words, oppositor submits that   duties of  the Registers  of  Deeds are  not wholly ministerial, for  they can and/or  suspend the  registration  of documents when they think  they are not  valid or not registrable.  In  denying the motion for reconsideration, the Land Registration  Commissioner said, in part

"The  only  question  resolved by this  Commission was  the  registrability of the two notices  of adverse claims.  The allegations and counter- allegations  of the  contending  parties  on the validity or invalidity of the adverse claims were not considered. They should be addressed to  and decided by  a competent  court."

With the denial of the motion  for reconsideration, oppositor brought the matter to this  Court  on Appeal, claiming that the Land Registration  Commission erred  (1) in holding the adverse claims registrable; and  (2) in holding that  it is the mandatory duty of the Register  of-Deeds to register the instant notices  of adverse  claims "whether or not they are valid,  whether  or not they   are frivolous and merely intended to harass."

In addition to the well-taken disquisitions of the L.R.C., it should be observed that Section 110 of Act No. 496, which is the legal  provision  applicable to the  case, is divided into two parts: the first refers  to  the duty of the  party who claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered  owner, subsequent to the date of the original registration;  and the requirements  to  be  complied with  in  order that ,such statement shall be  entitled  to registration as an adverse claim, thus   showing the ministerial function of the Register of  Deeds,  when no defect is found on the face of such instrument; and the second applies only when,  after registration of the adverse claim, a party  files an appropriate petition with  a competent court which  shall grant a speedy hearing upon the  question of the validity of such adverse claim, and to enter a decree, as justice and equity require; and in  this hearing, the  competent court  shall resolve  whether  the  adverse claim is  frivolous or vexatious,  which shall   serve as  the basis in  taxing the costs.  In the  instant case,  the first part was already  acted  upon by  the L.R.C. which  resolved in favor of the registrability of the two  adverse claims and this part should  have  been considered as closed. What is  left, is the determination  of  the validity of  the adverse claims by competent court, after the filing of  the corresponding  petition  for hearing, which  the appellant had not done.

Anent  the second assignment  of error, the  Land Registration Commission did not state that it was mandatory for a Register of  Deeds to register invalid or frivolous documents, or those intended to harrass; it merely said that whether the  document is invalid, frivolous or intended to harrass,  is not the duty of a Register  of  Deeds to decide, but a   court of competent jurisdiction, and  that it is  his concern to see whether  the documents sought to be registered conform  with the formal  and legal  requirements for such documents.

Wherefore, the Resolution of the Land Registration Commission, holding the  registrability  of the Adverse Claims under consideration,  should  be,  as it  is   hereby affirmed,  with costs against oppositor-appellant Juanita R. Domingo.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  Barrera, Dizon,   Regala  and  Makalintal,  JJ., concur.

 

---

^[1] Special Proceeding No. 2658 CFI of Rizal, still pending.