G.R. No. L-35744 September 28, 1984
WENCESLAO JUNIO, petitioner-appellant, vs. FELICIANO DE LOS SANTOS and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PANGASINAN, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Wenceslao Junio is the registered owner of land covered by TCT No. 1004. Respondent Feliciano de los Santos, claiming a one-third undivided portion by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Junio in favor of de los Santos and two others, executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim which was annotated on Junio’s title. Junio denies having sold any portion of his property and filed a Petition for cancellation of the adverse claim. He argues the annotation was improper under Section 110 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ), as it is a remedy only available when no other means of registration exists, and that Section 57 provides the proper procedure for registering a documented sale. He also contends the Register of Deeds acted negligently.
De los Santos opposed, asserting he attempted to register under Section 57 but Junio refused to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, compelling him to resort to an adverse claim under Section 110. The lower court, based solely on the pleadings, denied the petition for cancellation, stating petitioner had a remedy but not in these summary proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the annotation of the adverse claim by respondent de los Santos was proper under the Land Registration Act.

RULING

Yes, the annotation was proper. The Court explained the interplay between Sections 57 and 110 of Act No. 496 . Section 57 provides the standard procedure for registering a conveyance, requiring the grantor’s duplicate certificate. Section 110 allows an adverse claim when “no other provision is made in this Act for registering the same.” Since Junio refused to surrender his duplicate title, de los Santos could not avail of Section 57. Therefore, he correctly resorted to the annotation of an adverse claim under Section 110 as an alternative remedy to protect his alleged interest.
The Court distinguished the cited case of Register of Deeds of Quezon City vs. Nicandro, noting it involved an uncontested perfected contract of sale, unlike here where the sale itself is disputed. The Court also rejected Junio’s argument that Section 111 (on entering a new certificate without the duplicate) was the exclusive remedy, holding that Section 110 remains an available provisional measure. However, the lower court erred in dismissing the petition summarily. Under Section 110, the court is mandated to conduct a speedy hearing on the validity of the adverse claim. The Regional Trial Court, acting as a land registration court with general jurisdiction, should have decided the controversy on the merits. Consequently, the case was remanded for a full hearing on the validity of the claim, with instructions to implead the other alleged co-vendees to settle the entire ownership dispute.