ARRAZOLA vs BERNAS

FACTS:
Elviro Bernas disinherited his adopted daughter Teresita and when he was
79 years old , he executed a notarized will instituting his brother and sister
as heirs to all his properties including the lots which he had involuntary
transferred to Teresita. In 1967, Elviro died. On December, 1967, Pedro A.
Bernas filed with the register of deeds of Capiz a verified notice of adverse
claim. A copy of the will was attached to the adverse claim.
After the register of deeds had annotated the adverse claim on the transfer
certificates of title, Teresita filed in the cadastral and probate proceedings a
motion for the cancellation of the annotation of adverse claim. The motion
was predicated on the grounds that she was not served with prior notice" of
the adverse claim and that there was "no petition for approval or
justification" filed with the court. Pedro A. Bernas and Soledad Bernas
Alivio opposed the motion. The lower court in its order of August 20, 1968
granted it and ordered the register of deeds to cancel the annotation. The
oppositors appealed.
ISSUE: Whether or not expected hereditary rights do not constitute
adverse claim
RULING:
Yes, the contingent, expectant and inchoate hereditary rights of the
children of a living parent do not constitute an adverse claim during his
lifetime which could be annotated on the titles covering the parent's land.
That is an illustration of a frivolous or vexatious adverse claim.
In the instant case, the lower court ordered the cancellation of the adverse
claim because the will of Elviro Bernas had not yet been probated. It
reasoned out that before the probate Pedro A. Bernas and Soledad Bernas
Alivio are merely presumptive heirs with a "contingent, expectant and
inchoate" interest in the two lots.
The purpose of annotating the adverse claim on the title of the disputed
land is to apprise third persons that there is a controversy over the
ownership of the land and to preserve and protect the right of the adverse
claimant during the pendency of the controversy. It is a notice to third
persons that any transaction regarding the disputed land is subject to the
outcome of the dispute.
It has been said that the annotation of an adverse claim should not be
confused with its validity which should be litigated in a proper proceeding
and that the registration of an invalid adverse claim is not as harmful as the
non-registration of a valid one
Taedo vs. CA
FACTS:
Lazaro Taedo executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Ricardo
Taedo and Teresita Barrera in which he conveyed a parcel of land which
he will inherit. Upon the death of his father he executed an affidavit of
conformity to reaffirm the said sale. He also executed another deed of sale
in favor of the spouses covering the parcel of land he already inherited.
Ricardo registered the last deed of sale in the registry of deeds in their
favor.

Ricardo later learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his children
through a deed of sale.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Taedo spouses have a better right over the property
against the children of Lazaro Taedo

RULING:
Since a future inheritance generally cannot be a subject of a contract, the
deed of sale and the affidavit of conformity made by Lazaro has no effect.
The subject of dispute therefore is the deed of sale made by him in favor of
spouses Taedo and another to his children after he already legally
acquired the property.

Thus, although the deed of sale in favor of private respondents was later
than the one in favor of petitioners, ownership would vest in the former
because of the undisputed fact of registration. On the other hand,
petitioners have not registered the sale to them at all.

Petitioners contend that they were in possession of the property and that
private respondents never took possession thereof. As between two
purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor has a preferred
right over the other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in
actual possession of the immovable property.

Atty. Ferrer vs Sps. Diaz

FACTS:

Petitioner Atty. Ferrer claimed in his original Complaint

that on May 7,
1999, the Diazes, as represented by their daughter Comandante, through a
Special Power of Attorney (SPA), obtained from him a loan
of P1,118,228.00. The loan was secured by a Real Estate Mortgage Contract

by way of second mortgage over Transfer Certificate of Title and a Promissory
Note pimary payable within six months or up to November 7,
1999. Comandante also issued to petitioner postdated checks to secure
payment of said loan. Clearly, petitioners Affidavit of Adverse Claim was
based solely on the waiver of hereditary interest executed by Comandante.
The Diazes, however, reneged on their obligation as the checks
issued by Comandante were dishonored upon presentment. Despite
repeated demands, said respondents still failed and refused to settle the
loan. Thus, petitioner filed on September 29, 1999 a Complaint for
Collection of Sum of Money Secured by Real Estate Mortgage Contract
against the Diazes and Comandante .

Petitioner twice amended his complaint. First, by including as an
alternative relief the Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage and, second, by
impleading as additional defendants the Pangans as the mortgaged
property covered by Transfer of Certificate of Title was already transferred
under their names in Transfer of Certificates of title. Petitioner prayed in
his second amended complaint that all the respondents be ordered to
jointly and solidarily pay him the sum of P1,118,228.00, exclusive of
interests, and/or for the judicial foreclosure of the property pursuant to the
Real Estate Mortgage Contract.

ISSUES: Whether or not Comandantes waiver of hereditary rights valid.
Whether not the petitioners adverse claim based on such waiver likewise valid
and effective

RULING:
Yes. In this case, there is no question that at the time of execution of
Comandantes Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property
(Still Undivided), succession to either of her parents properties has not yet been
opened since both of them are still living. With respect to the other two
requisites, both are likewise present considering that the property subject matter
of Comandantes waiver concededly forms part of the properties that she expect
to inherit from her parents upon their death and, such expectancy of a right, as
shown by the facts, is undoubtedly purely hereditary in nature.
From the foregoing, it is clear that Comandante and petitioner entered into
a contract involving the formers future inheritance as embodied in the Waiver of
Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed
by her in petitioners favor.
We note at the outset that the validity of petitioners adverse claim should
have been determined by the trial court after the petition for cancellation of
petitioners adverse claim filed by Comandante It has been held that the validity
or efficaciousness of an adverse claim may only be determined by the Court
upon petition by an interested party, in which event, the Court shall order the
immediate hearing thereof and make the proper adjudication as justice and
equity may warrant. And, it is only when such claim is found unmeritorious that
the registration of the adverse claim may be cancelled.
.
All the respondents contend that the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and
Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by Comandante is null
and void for being violative of Article 1347 of the Civil Code, hence, petitioners
adverse claim which was based upon such waiver is likewise void and cannot
confer upon the latter any right or interest over the property. Petition is denied.