7. Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.

102377, July 5, 1996

Facts:
On September 22, 1983, spouses Ernesto Uychocde and Lucita Jarin entered
into a contract of sale over a residential land in Antipolo Rizal in favor of spouses
Alfredo Sajonas and Conchita Sajonas. The Sajonas spouses agreed to pay the same
in installment basis under their Contract to Sell. On August 27, 1984, the Sajonas
spouses caused the annotation of their adverse claim based on the contract to sell. On
September 4, 1984, the Uychocdes spouses executed a Deed of Sale after receiving
the full payment of the purchase price from the Sajonas spouses. It was registered on
August 28, 1985.
Meanwhile, Domingo Pilares filed a Civil Case for the collection of sum of money
against Ernesto Uychocde. On June 25, 1980 they instead entered into a compromise
agreement wherein Uychocde is to pay him the amount of P27,800 within two years
from June 25, 1980. When he failed to pay, Pilares moved for the issuance of a writ of
execution, and it was granted on August 3, 1982. Pursuant to the issue, Sheriff Roberto
Garcia of Quezon City presented the notice of levy on execution to the Register of
Deeds of Marikina on February 12, 1985. The same was annotated at the back of the
TCT. On August 28, 1985, the TCT was cancelled and a new TCT was issued to the
Sajonas spouses but the notice of levy on execution was carried over to the new title.
The Sajonas spouses filed a complaint and demanded that the notice of levy on
execution be cancelled on the ground that the property was already transferred,
conveyed and assigned to them, and that there are no more rights or interests to be
levied upon. The trial court rendered judgment in their favor on the ground that actual
notice of an adverse claim is equivalent to registration, but it was reversed in the Court
of Appeals.
Issue: Whether or not the Sajonas spouses have a better right over the property.
Held:
Yes, the Sajonas spouses have a better right over the property. According to the
Supreme Court, Section 70 of PD 1529 must not be construed to mean that the
effectivity of a statement of adverse claim is effective only for a period of 30 days. It
must be understood that what the law meant was that beyond the thirty day period, the
annotation continues to be in effect, otherwise the law would not have included that the
claim may be cancelled after the lapse of the period upon filing of a verified petition by
the party in interest as such would be a useless provision. Furthermore, to render such
application would not fulfill its purpose of protecting the interest of a person over the real
property and warning third parties of an existing claim or interest similar or better than
the right of the registered owner of the land.
Hence, it must be held that the annotation of an adverse claim still remains in
effect on February 12, 1985 when the Sheriff annotated notice of levy on execution. It
therefore prevails over the latter. Judgment is reversed.

8. Aznar Brothers Realty vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128102, March 7, 2000
Facts:
A lot with an area of 34,325 square meters was located in Brgy. Mactan, LapuLapu City was obtained by Aznar from the heirs of Crisanta Maloloy-on through an
Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale on March 3, 1964. It
was registered on March 6, 1964 and was thereafter, declared by Aznar for purposes of
taxation. The heirs, however, were still occupying portions of the land by mere tolerance
and under the condition that they would leave should Aznar use the property. Later on,
Aznar entered into a joint venture with Sta. Lucia Realty Development Corporation for a
housing subdivision and beach resort to be developed over the subject property. Aznar
demanded them to vacate the property, but they refused. Aznar filed a case against
them for unlawful detainer with the MTC.
On the other hand, the heirs claimed that they had been occupying the property
as owner since the time of their parents and grandparents. They claimed that the
Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale must be rendered void
ab initio for being simulated and fraudulent. They likewise filed a case to declare the
document null and void with the RTC.
The MTC rendered a decision in favor of Aznar and was affirmed by the RTC. In
the Court of Appeals however, the decision was reversed on the ground that the heirs
were in peaceful, continuous, adverse and notorious possession of the property since
time immemorial.
Issue: Whether or not the Aznar has a better right over the property.
Held:
Yes, the Aznar has a better right over the property in question. Aznars claim is
anchored on the validity of the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale and in
this case, the court believes that such is valid. It must be noted that an Extrajudicial
Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale is a notarized document. Hence it is favored with
the presumption of regularity and carries evidentiary weight and it is up to the heirs to
prove otherwise. In this case, the heirs over the property provided no proof to their
allegations that the contract is fraudulent, nor that the parties to the deed of sale were
not legally capable of entering into a contract due to death and minority.
In addition, the principle that registration is the operative act that gives validity to
the transfer or creates a lien upon the land refers only to cases involving conflicting
rights over registered property and those of innocent transferees who relied on the
clean title of their properties and has no bearing in this case as there was no proof that
the heirs sold it to anyone else other than Aznar.
Hence, the Aznar must be deemed the lawful owner of the land. The judgment is
reversed.