VALDERAMA vs.

SONIA ARGUELLES AND LORNA ARGUELLES

G.R. No. 223660

Doctrine:

Facts:
 Case: petition for review
 Petitioner: Lourdes Valderama
 Respondent: Sonia and Lorna Arguelles
 The respondents filed a petition to cancel adverse claim involving a parcel of land. They
alleged that a certain Conchita Amongo Francia, who was not the registered owner of a
land in Sampaloc, Manila, freely and voluntarily executed an absolute deed of sale of
the subject property in favor of respondents, and was registered under their names.
 Conchita filed an affidavit of adverse claim, but died a year after. The respondents
prayed for the cancellation of the adverse claim that Conchita filed.
 The petitioner and a certain Tarcila, who were full-blooded sisters of Conchita filed an
opposition to the respondents’ petition. They claimed that upon Conchita’s death, her
claims and rights were transmitted to them by operation of law.
 While the petition was pending before the RTC, the respondents filed a complaint for
recovery of ownership and physical possession of a piece of realty and its improvements
with damages and with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or
writ of preliminary injunction against the petitioner.
 The respondents thereon filed a motion for the cancellation of the adverse claim
annotated on the Transfer Certificate Title on the ground that the petitioner’s
subsequent filing of notice of lis pendens rendered the issue moot and academic.
 The RTC issued a Resolution ordering the cancellation of the adverse claim, citing the
pronouncement in Villaflor vs. Juerzan, which stated that a notice of lis pendens
between the parties calls for a cancellation thereof.
 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s appeals for lack of merit, holding that
the issue on cancellation of adverse claim is a question of law since its resolution would
not involve an examination of evidence, but the application of the law.

Issue:
Whether or not the adverse claim caused to be annotated by a person on a title may be
cancelled merely because another person caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on
the same title.

Held:
 NO.
 The Supreme Court held that an adverse claim and notice of lis pendens are both
involuntary dealings expressly recognized under PD 1529 (Property Registration Decree).
 PD 1529 introduced a minor change in the LRA, section 10. According to said law, the
annotation of adverse claim may be canceled upon filing of a verified petition therefor
by the party in interest: Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second adverse
claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the same claimant.