Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Estella, et al. vs.

Register of Deeds of Rizal


106 Phil 911 29 January 1960 | Padilla, J. | Post registration Dealings with land

Doctrine:
An adverse claim of ownership over a land registered under Act No. 496 based on prescription and adverse
possession cannot be registered by RD as under the said Act, no title in derogation to that of the registered owner
may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. The registration of adverse claim would serve no useful
purpose as it could not validly and legally affect the parcel of land.

Facts:
Moraga filed in RD Rizal an affidavit of adverse claim, claiming ownership over Lot 14 in Caloocan with an area of
682.5 sqm with TCT under the name of John Yu, married to Aniceta Yu, on the ground that Phil. Realty Corp. sold
the same to a Chinese citizen disqualified to acquire public agricultural land or hold lands of the public domain.
The sale being null and void, the vendor nor the vendee retained or acquired ownership of the land and that
same has reverted to the State as patrimonial property. Moraga alleged that he and his predecessors-in-interest
have been in actual and continuous possession for more than 10y and built 2 houses thereon, and since then no
one has claim ownership or possession of the same and that Yu knew of his possession when the land was sold
to them by PRC.

LRC: Refused to register adverse claim. Land registered LRA which provides that no title to registered land in
derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

Moraga filed MR while Estella filed with LRC a written consulta based on their adverse claim over the 1/3 of the
lot under the same grounds of Moraga, praying their claim be registered as well. LRC denied Moragas MR as well
as the petition of Estella.

Issue:
Whether Moragas adverse claim is registrable. NO

Held:
An adverse claim of ownership over a parcel of land registered under Act No. 496 based on prescription and
adverse possession cannot be registered by RD as under the said Act, no title in derogation to that of the
registered owner may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. The registration of the Estellas adverse
claim would serve no useful purpose as it could not validly and legally affect the parcel of land.

As re: ministerial duty of RD to register adverse claim


Rule does not apply in this case, as stated earlier, registration would serve no useful purpose as it could not validly
and legally affect the parcel of land.

As re: reversion of the land to the State


Even if sustained, adverse claims still cannot be registered as prescription does not run against the State. Further,
reversion does not take the land out of the operation of Act 496.

LRC AFFIRMED.