Ching vs. Enrile

3/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 565
Notes.—The essence of estafa under Article 315(1)(b),

RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received, to the prejudice of the owner; the
demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and
the failure of the accused-agent to account for it are
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. (Bonifacio vs.
People, 494 SCRA 527 [2006])
In a prosecution for estafa, while demand is not
necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or
conversion, failure to account upon demand for funds or
property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation. (Cosme, Jr. vs. People, 508 SCRA 190
[2006])
——o0o——
G.R. No. 156076. September 17, 2008.*
SPS. JESUS CHING AND LEE POE TIN, petitioners, vs.

SPS. ADOLFO & ARSENIA ENRILE, respondents.
Land Registration; Notice of Adverse Claim; In the 1996 case

of Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 79 (1996), 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.—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, 258 SCRA 79 (1996), 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
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001623d8db854cbbbd6b3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
* FIRST DIVISION.
403
VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 403
Ching vs. Enrile
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.
Same; Same; We held that for as long as there is yet no
petition for its cancellation, the notice of adverse claim remains
subsisting.—We held that for as long as there is yet no petition for
its cancellation, the notice of adverse claim remains subsisting:
Thus: At first blush, the provision in question would seem to
restrict the effectivity of the adverse claim to thirty days. But the
above provision cannot and should not be treated separately, but
should be read in relation to the sentence following, which reads:
After the lapse of said period, the annotation of the adverse claim
may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the
party in interest. If the rationale of the law was for the adverse
claim to ipso facto lose force and effect after the lapse of thirty
days, then it would not have been necessary to include the
foregoing caveat to clarify and complete the rule. For then, no
adverse claim need be cancelled. If it has been automatically
terminated by mere lapse of time, the law would not have
required the party in interest to do a useless act.
Same; Same; In a petition for cancellation of adverse claim, a
hearing must first be conducted.—In a petition for cancellation of
adverse claim, a hearing must first be conducted. The hearing will
afford the parties an opportunity to prove the propriety or
impropriety of the adverse claim. Now, as we see it, the recourse
will either rise or fall on the decisive question of whether or not
respondents were purchasers in good faith when they acquired
the disputed lot despite the annotated adverse claim on their title.
Same; Land Titles; The Court has invariably ruled that in case of
conflict between a vendee and an attaching creditor, an attaching
creditor who registers the order of attachment and the sale of the
property to him as the highest bidder acquires a valid title to the
property from the same owner but who failed to register his deed of
sale.—The Court has invariably ruled that in case of conflict
between a vendee and an attaching creditor, an attaching creditor
who registers the order of attachment and the sale of the property
to him as the highest bidder acquires a valid title to the property
as against a vendee who had previously bought the same property
from the same owner but who failed to register his deed of sale.
This is because
404
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ching vs. Enrile
registration is the operative act that binds or affects the land

insofar as third persons are concerned. It is upon registration that
there is notice to the whole world. But where a party has
knowledge of a prior existing interest, as here, which is
unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his
knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of
registration as to him. Knowledge of an unregistered sale is
equivalent to registration.
Same; Same; The general rule is that a person dealing with
registered land is not required to go behind the register to
determine the condition of the property.—The general rule is that
a person dealing with registered land is not required to go behind
the register to determine the condition of the property. In that
case, such person is charged with notice of the burden on the
property which is noted on the face of the register or certificate of
title.
Same; Same; In Bautista vs. Court of Appeals (230 SCRA 446
[1994]), we held that where the thing sold twice is an immovable,
the one who acquires it and first registers it in the Registry of
Property, in good faith, shall be the owner.—An “innocent
purchaser for value” or any equivalent phrase shall be deemed to
include, under the Torrens System, the innocent lessee,
mortgagee, and other encumbrancer for value. In Bautista v.
Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 446 (1994), we held that where the
thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first
registers it in the Registry of Property, in good faith, shall be the
owner.
Same; Same; It is a well-settled rule that a purchaser cannot close
his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his
guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief
that there was no defect in the title of the vendor.—The law does
not require a person dealing with the owner of registered land to
go beyond the certificate of title as he may rely on the notices of
the encumbrances on the property annotated on the certificate of
title or absence of any annotation. Here, petitioners’ adverse claim
is annotated at the back of the title coupled with the fact that
they are in possession of the disputed property. To us, these
circumstances should have put respondents on guard and
required them to ascertain the property being offered to them has

already been sold to another to prevent injury to prior innocent
buyers. A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact which
would create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable man is not an
innocent purchaser for
405
VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 405
Ching vs. Enrile
value. It is a well-settled rule that a purchaser cannot close his

eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard,
and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that
there was no defect in the title of the vendor.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jose A. Dizon for petitioners.
Gatmaytan Law Office for respondents.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Assailed in the instant petition for review on certiorari

are the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
August 29, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. 42985 and the
Resolution2 dated November 21, 2002 denying petitioners’
motion for reconsideration.
The assailed CA decision reversed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 135, in
Civil Case No. 90-064, an action for quieting of title thereat
commenced by petitioner spouses Jesus Ching and Lee Poe
Tin against respondent spouses Adolfo and Arsenia Enrile.
The antecedent facts follow.
On September 5, 1985, petitioners purchased from a
certain Raymunda La Fuente a 370-square meter lot
located at Barrio Tungtong, Las Piñas and covered by TCT
No. 83618. La Fuente delivered to petitioners a duly
notarized Deed of Absolute Sale3 with the Owner’s
Duplicate Certificate of Title
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with

Associate Justices Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now retired Supreme Court
Associate Justice) and Danilo B. Pine (ret.), concurring; Rollo, pp. 7-21.
2 Id., p. 26.
3 Id., p. 42.
406

Ching vs. Enrile
and thereafter, petitioners took physical possession of the

subject property.
For reasons known only to petitioners, the conveyance
was not registered in the Register of Deeds as prescribed by
Section 51 of PD 15294. Instead, on November 20, 1986,
petitioners executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim which
was recorded and annotated at the back of TCT No. 83618
reflected in the Memorandum of Encumbrances under
Entry No. 86-62262.5
In the meantime, petitioners peacefully and
continuously possessed the subject property.
On August 19, 1988—three years after they purchased
the disputed property, petitioners received a Notice of Levy
on Attachment and Writ of Execution issued by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig in favor of
respondents, in Civil Case No. 54617 entitled Sps. Adolfo
Enrile and Arsenia Enrile v. Raymunda La Fuente.
The Notice of Levy on Attachment was recorded at the
dorsal portion of TCT No. 83618 under Entry No. 3433-2
while the Writ of Execution was inscribed under Entry No.
3434-2. Also inscribed in the TCT is the Certificate of Sale
dated January 26, 1989 covering the disputed property in
favor of respondents.
On January 8, 1990, petitioners filed a Petition to
Remove Cloud on or Quiet Title to Real Property asserting
ownership of the disputed property.
On May 11, 1993, the RTC rendered judgment in favor
of petitioners upholding the latter’s superior right over the
disputed property in view of the registration of the
Affidavit of Adverse Claim prior to the Certificate of Sale
annotated in favor of respondents. Dispositively the
decision reads:
_______________
4 The Property Registration Decree.

5 Rollo, p. 41.
407
VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 407

Ching vs. Enrile
“WHEREFORE, premises, the above-entitled petition is

granted for being preponderantly meritorious. Judgment is
hereby rendered ordering:
1) The Register of Deeds of Las Piñas, Metro Manila to
cancel all the annotations of encumbrances in favor of
defendants [respondents] in Transfer Certificate of Title No.
83618 issued by the Register of Deeds of Pasay City, Metro
Manila, District IV;
2) Defendants [respondents] to pay plaintiffs
[petitioners] in the sum of P 10,000.00 as compensatory
damages by way of litigation expenses;
3) To pay to plaintiffs [petitioners] the sum of
P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and,
4) To pay the cost of the proceedings.
SO ORDERED.”
In time, respondents appealed to the CA, principally

arguing that the RTC committed reversible error in ruling
that petitioners had a better right over the disputed
property. Respondents theorized that the prior conveyance
of the disputed property made by La Fuente to petitioners
being a voluntary dealing with a registered land, mere
registration of their adverse claim was insufficient. To
respondents, in order to have petitioners’ interest
protected, they should have registered the Deed of Absolute
Sale with the Register of Deeds pursuant to Section 51 of
PD 1529 and not merely register an adverse claim under
Section 70 of the same law. Citing the second paragraph of
Section 70 which provides that an adverse claim shall be
effective for a period of thirty days from the date of
registration, respondents insisted that the annotated
Adverse Claim of petitioners had already expired, hence, it
offered no protection when respondents acquired the
disputed property through execution sale.
On August 29, 2002, the CA rendered the herein
challenged decision reversing that of the RTC. Even as the
CA viewed the prior sale of the disputed lot in favor of
petitioners as perfected and consummated, it nonetheless
upheld respon-
408

Ching vs. Enrile
dents’ preferential right over the disputed property.

Finding merit in respondents’ arguments, the CA ruled:
“This Court, also believes that there is truth in defendants-

appellants’ assertion that while the sale is perfected and
consummated, plaintiffs-appellees failed to diligently protect their
interests by failing to register the conveyance or transaction in
the office of Register of Deeds. An owner of a registered land is
vested by law with rights and obligations and thus exercises all
attributes of ownership. These attributes include among others
the right to dispose the real property itself. The owner of the land
may convey, mortgage, lease or otherwise deal with the same in
accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds,
mortgages, leases or other voluntary instrument as are sufficient
in law. However, as clearly provided by Section 51 of Presidential
Decree 1529, no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary
instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect registered
land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, until the
same has been registered in the office of the Register of Deeds. It
shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as
evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to effect
registration. The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned,
and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made
in the Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where
the land lies. Unless and until the subject transaction has been
filed or registered in the office of the Register of Deeds, the
transaction shall only be binding on the parties to the contract
but not on the third person. The instrument is not thereby
rendered void by failure to register. Section 51 of PD 1529 states:
Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by
registered owner.—An owner of registered land may convey,
mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in
accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of
deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as
are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease or other
voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or
affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or
bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between
the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of
Deeds to make registration.
409
VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 409

Ching vs. Enrile
The act of registration shall be the operative act to

convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the

registration shall be made in the office of the Register of
Deeds for the province or city where the land lies.
Laying the blame on petitioners, the CA added:
“The law provides protection to third person, who believing in

good faith and relying on the sweet representations of some evil
minded persons, may be unjustifiably inveigled to enter into a
contract or transaction not knowing that the subject real property
has been encumbered or sold. It is the duty of the buyer or vendee
to register the transaction before the Register of Deeds of the
province or city where the property lies. The registration is
intended to inform any minded individual that the property has
been subjected to a prior transaction and that entering into any
further contract involving the same property shall be at his own
risk. In the event that any third person was bona fide tricked to
enter into any transaction involving the same property because
the transferee or vendee failed to register the same as required by
law, the latter’s interests should be subordinated to that of the
third party. Axiomatic is the rule in this jurisdiction that when
loss or damage was caused to two individuals who both acted in
good faith but one is negligent, the loss or damage shall fall upon
the one who acted negligently.”
Citing a myriad of jurisprudence6, the CA declared that

respondents, as attaching creditors who registered the
order of attachment and the sale of the property to them as
the highest bidders, acquired a valid title to the disputed
property as against petitioners who had previously bought
the same property from the registered owner but failed to
register their deed of sale.
The CA further declared respondents as purchasers in
good faith. On the premise that petitioners’ filing of the
Affidavit of
_______________
6 Worcester v. Ocampo, 34 Phil. 646 (1916); Laxamana v. Carlos, 57

Phil. 722 (1932); Anderson v. Garcia, 64 Phil. 506 (1937); Vargas v.
Francisco, 67 Phil. 308 (1939); Reynes v. Barrera, 68 Phil. 656 (1939).
410

Ching vs. Enrile
Adverse Claim was procedurally flawed and that the

annotated adverse claim had already prescribed on
December 20, 1986 after the lapse of 30 days from its

registration which was November 20, 1986, the CA ruled
that it cannot be considered sufficient notice to third
person like the respondents who were not aware of the sale
of the disputed lot to petitioners prior to the levy on
attachment.
As stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in its decision7
of August 29, 2002, reversed and set aside that of the RTC,
thus:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated

May 11, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, Branch 135, Makati City in Civil Case No. 90-064
is hereby REVERSED.
The Register of Deeds of Las Piñas, Metro Manila is hereby
mandated not to cancel any annotations of encumbrances in favor
of defendants-appellants in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 83618
issued by the Register of Deeds of Pasay City, Metro Manila, Dist.
IV.
Who among the parties has a preferential right over the
disputed property.
SO ORDERED.”
Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by

the CA in its challenged Resolution of November 21, 2002,
petitioners are now before this Court, faulting the CA as
follows:
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY

ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
RENDERED SUBJECT DECISION AND RESOLUTION IN A
WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR RULES
WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT; Specifically, the Court a quo erred;
a. When it held that the levy on attachment LATER
annotated shall prevail over the Adverse Claim EARLIER
_______________
7 Supra note 1.
411
VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 411

Ching vs. Enrile
annotated at the back of the title by the mere lapse of 30

days and even without any petition in court for its
cancellation;
b. When it did not dismiss the appeal considering that

the question raised were questions of law and NO question
of fact.”8
The petition is impressed with merit.

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.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the
adverse claimant’s residence, and a place at which all notices may
be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to
registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The
adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the
date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation
of adverse claim may be cancelled 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.”
_______________
8 Id., p. 32.
9 G.R. No. 102377, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 79, 94.
412

Ching vs. Enrile
In the same case, we held that for as long as there is yet

no petition for its cancellation, the notice of adverse claim
remains subsisting: Thus:
“At first blush, the provision in question would seem to restrict

the effectivity of the adverse claim to thirty days. But the above
provision cannot and should not be treated separately, but should

be read in relation to the sentence following, which reads:
After the lapse of said period, the annotation of the
adverse claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified
petition therefor by the party in interest.
If the rationale of the law was for the adverse claim to
ipso facto lose force and effect after the lapse of thirty days,
then it would not have been necessary to include the
foregoing caveat to clarify and complete the rule. For then,
no adverse claim need be cancelled. If it has been
automatically terminated by mere lapse of time, the law
would not have required the party in interest to do a useless
act.”10
In a petition for cancellation of adverse claim, a hearing

must first be conducted. The hearing will afford the parties
an opportunity to prove the propriety or impropriety of the
adverse claim.11
Now, as we see it, the recourse will either rise or fall on
the decisive question of whether or not respondents were
purchasers in good faith when they acquired the disputed
lot despite the annotated adverse claim on their title.
We rule and so hold that they were not.
The Court has invariably ruled that in case of conflict
between a vendee and an attaching creditor, an attaching
creditor who registers the order of attachment and the sale
of the property to him as the highest bidder acquires a
valid title to the property as against a vendee who had
previously bought
_______________
10 Id., pp. 95-96.

11 Rolando Y. Tan v. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135038, November
16, 2001, 369 SCRA 255, 264.
413
VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 413

Ching vs. Enrile
the same property from the same owner but who failed to
register his deed of sale. This is because registration is the
operative act that binds or affects the land insofar as third
persons are concerned. It is upon registration that there is
notice to the whole world. But where a party has
knowledge of a prior existing interest, as here, which is
unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same
land, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has

the effect of registration as to him.12 Knowledge of an
unregistered sale is equivalent to registration.13
The general rule is that a person dealing with registered
land is not required to go behind the register to determine
the condition of the property. In that case, such person is
charged with notice of the burden on the property which is
noted on the face of the register or certificate of title.14
Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs in cases of double
sale. It provides:
“Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong

to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the
Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to
the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in
the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith.”
An “innocent purchaser for value” or any equivalent

phrase shall be deemed to include, under the Torrens
System, the
_______________
12 Ruiz, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121298, July 31, 2001, 362
SCRA 40, 50, citing Egao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79787, June 29,
1989, 174 SCRA 484.
13 Winkleman v. Veluz, 43 Phil. 604, 608 (1922).
14 Navotas Industrial Corporation v. German D. Cruz, et al., G.R. No.
159212, September 12, 2005, 469 SCRA 530, 553.
414

Ching vs. Enrile
innocent lessee, mortgagee, and other encumbrancer for

value.15
In Bautista v. Court of Appeals,16 we held that where the
thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it
and first registers it in the Registry of Property, in good
faith, shall be the owner.
Who then can be considered a purchaser in good faith?
In the early case of Leung Yee v. F.L. Strong Machinery
Co. and Williamson,17 the Court explained good faith in
this wise:
“One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or

lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title
thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an
interest therein; and the same rule must be applied to one who
has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such
inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him
with the defects in the title of his vendor.”18
Good faith, or the want of it, is capable of being

ascertained only from the acts of one claiming its presence,
for it is a condition of the mind which can only be judged by
actual or fancied token or signs.19
It is beyond dispute that the property in question had
already been sold by La Fuente to petitioners on September
5, 1985. Petitioners immediately took possession thereof.
When the Notice of Levy on Attachment was recorded at
the dorsal portion of TCT No. 83618 and when the Writ of
Execution and Certificate of Sale were inscribed under
Entry No. 3434-2 in favor of respondents, on January 26,
1989, petitioners have
_______________
15 Express Credit Financing Corporation v. Sps. Morton and Juanita

Velasco, G.R. No. 156033, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 570, 577.
16 G.R. No. 106042, 28 February 1994, 230 SCRA 446, 454.
17 No. 11658, 37 Phil. 644, 651 (1918).
18 Id., at p. 651.
19 Id., at p. 652.
415
VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 415

Ching vs. Enrile
been, since September 5, 1985, in actual, physical,

continuous and uninterrupted possession.
The law does not require a person dealing with the
owner of registered land to go beyond the certificate of title
as he may rely on the notices of the encumbrances on the
property annotated on the certificate of title or absence of
any annotation. Here, petitioners’ adverse claim is
annotated at the back of the title coupled with the fact that
they are in possession of the disputed property. To us,
these circumstances should have put respondents on guard
and required them to ascertain the property being offered
to them has already been sold to another to prevent injury
to prior innocent buyers. A person who deliberately ignores
a significant fact which would create suspicion in an

otherwise reasonable man is not an innocent purchaser for
value. It is a well-settled rule that a purchaser cannot close
his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon
his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under
the belief that there was no defect in the title of the
vendor.20
As aptly observed by the RTC, regardless of the non-
registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale to petitioners, nor
the 30-day effectivity of the adverse claim under Section 70
of PD 1529, respondents were constructively notified of
petitioners’ prior purchase of the disputed property. We
quote with approval the RTC’s observation on this matter,
thus:
“x x x In derogation to defendants claim that they have a better

right over the questioned property superior over that of the
plaintiffs, the Court has only to carefully examine the face of TCT
No. 83618 and its dorsal part on Memorandum of Encumbrances
for entries and inscriptions in their chronological order of dates of
annotation of documents in the Office of the Register of Deeds. On
the title itself it is readily perceived and palpable that Entry No.
86-
_______________
20 Amancio Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, Rodeanna Realty Corporation, et al.,

G.R. No. 152627, September 16, 2005, 470 SCRA 99, 123.
416

Ching vs. Enrile
62262/T-83618 in reference to the Adverse Claim executed by

plaintiff Jesus Ching was registered way ahead on November 20,
1986 compared to Entries Nos. 3433-2, 3434-2 and 736-3,
respectively the Notice of Levy, Writ of Execution and Certificate
of Sale in favor of spouses defendants Enrile which were duly
registered on August 19, 1988 (for the first two documents) and on
March 21, 1989 (for the last document). Perforce, before the
registrations of the three documents purporting to be the rights
and interests of defendants in the property in question, the
defendants more particularly and the whole world in general were
given constructive notice that Raymunda La Fuente, the
judgment debtor in Civil Case No. 54617 of the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig, has no more interest and rights to the property
subject of litigation. Defendants should have at the first instance
been duly warned and notified that the property involved in
litigation subject to attachment and levy, execution and sale from

actual registration of the defendants’ documents referred herein.
The annotation of inscription to Entry No. 86-622/T-83618 is
obviously and indeed very clear indicating that the plaintiffs’
registered adverse claim in reference to the sale of the same
property sought by defendants to be levied on attachment, final
execution and sale came ahead.”21
Hence, the particular circumstances of this case

constrain us to rule that respondents were not purchasers
in good faith and, as such, could not acquire good title to
the property as against the former transferee.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision
of the Court of Appeals promulgated on August 29, 2002, in
CA-G.R. CV No. 42985, and the Resolution dated
November 21, 2002 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. In lieu thereof, the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, of Makati City Branch 135, dated May 11, 1993, in
Civil Case No. 90-064 is REVIVED and AFFIRMED in toto.
No costs.
_______________
21 Rollo, pp. 61-62.
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ching vs. Enrile

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching vs. Enrile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/19/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 565

Notes.—The essence of estafa under Article 315(1)(b),

G.R. No. 156076. September 17, 2008.*

SPS. JESUS CHING AND LEE POE TIN, petitioners, vs.

Land Registration; Notice of Adverse Claim; In the 1996 case

VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 403

Ching vs. Enrile

how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of the

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ching vs. Enrile

registration is the operative act that binds or affects the land

required them to ascertain the property being offered to them has

VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 405

Ching vs. Enrile

value. It is a well-settled rule that a purchaser cannot close his

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Assailed in the instant petition for review on certiorari

1 Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and thereafter, petitioners took physical possession of the

4 The Property Registration Decree.

VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 407

Ching vs. Enrile

“WHEREFORE, premises, the above-entitled petition is

In time, respondents appealed to the CA, principally

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

dents’ preferential right over the disputed property.

“This Court, also believes that there is truth in defendants-

VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 409

The act of registration shall be the operative act to

concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the

Laying the blame on petitioners, the CA added:

“The law provides protection to third person, who believing in

Citing a myriad of jurisprudence6, the CA declared that

6 Worcester v. Ocampo, 34 Phil. 646 (1916); Laxamana v. Carlos, 57

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Adverse Claim was procedurally flawed and that the

December 20, 1986 after the lapse of 30 days from its

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY

VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 411

annotated at the back of the title by the mere lapse of 30

b. When it did not dismiss the appeal considering that

The petition is impressed with merit.

“Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the same case, we held that for as long as there is yet

“At first blush, the provision in question would seem to restrict

provision cannot and should not be treated separately, but should

In a petition for cancellation of adverse claim, a hearing

10 Id., pp. 95-96.

VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 413

land, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has

“Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong

An “innocent purchaser for value” or any equivalent

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

innocent lessee, mortgagee, and other encumbrancer for

“One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or

Good faith, or the want of it, is capable of being

15 Express Credit Financing Corporation v. Sps. Morton and Juanita

VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 415