G.R. No. L-17956; September 30, 1963
ELISA D. GABRIEL, petitioner-appellee, vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, respondent, JUANITA R. DOMINGO, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Elisa D. Gabriel filed two separate Notices of Adverse Claim with the Registers of Deeds of Manila and Rizal against properties registered in the name of her sister, Juanita R. Domingo. Gabriel alleged that the properties rightfully belonged to the estate of their deceased mother, Antonia Reyes Vda. de Domingo, and were fraudulently registered in Domingo’s name, thereby depriving Gabriel, as an heir, of her lawful share. The Register of Deeds of Manila elevated the matter to the Land Registration Commission (LRC) for consultation due to doubt, while the Register of Deeds of Rizal outrightly denied registration. The Rizal Register of Deeds justified the denial by asserting that an affidavit of adverse claim under Section 110 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act) was not the proper remedy, suggesting Gabriel should have availed herself of other provisions like Section 98.
Juanita R. Domingo opposed the registration, contending the claims were baseless, intended for harassment, and would cause her irreparable loss. She argued the properties were acquired through an extrajudicial partition signed by both Gabriel and their mother. The LRC consolidated the cases for resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the Registers of Deeds have a ministerial duty to annotate the Notices of Adverse Claim presented by Elisa D. Gabriel, assuming they comply with formal requirements, or if they can deny registration based on an assessment of the claim’s substantive validity or alleged frivolous nature.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the LRC’s resolution, holding the adverse claims registrable. The Court clarified the two-stage process under Section 110 of Act No. 496 . The first part imposes a ministerial duty on the Register of Deeds. Provided the adverse claim is in writing, sworn to, states the claimant’s interest and how it was acquired, references the title, and describes the land, it must be registered. The Register of Deeds’ role at this stage is purely administrative and limited to checking compliance with these formal requisites; he cannot adjudicate the claim’s substantive validity, merits, or whether it is frivolous.
The second part of Section 110 comes into play after registration. It allows any interested party to petition a competent court for a specific hearing to determine the validity of the adverse claim. It is only at this judicial stage that questions regarding fraud, ownership, or whether the claim is vexatious are to be litigated and resolved. The Court emphasized that the potential harm of not registering a valid claim outweighs the harm of registering an invalid one, as registration itself does not create a lien but merely provides notice of a pending dispute.
Thus, since Gabriel’s Notices complied with the formal requirements of Section 110, the Registers of Deeds had a mandatory duty to annotate them. The assessment of the claims’ validity and Domingo’s allegations of harassment are matters for a court of competent jurisdiction to decide in a subsequent proceeding, not for the administrative register to prejudge. The denial by the Register of Deeds of Rizal was therefore incorrect.