Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Sajonas vs. CA[3] that the rationale of
the law is not for the adverse claim to ipso facto lose force and effect after the lapse of
thirty days. For then, it would not have been necessary to include the caveat that “after
the lapse of the thirty-day period, the annotation of adverse claim may be
cancelled upon filing of a verified petition by the party in interest” to clarify and complete
the rule. The law employs the phrase “may be cancelled”, which indicates, as inherent
in its decision making power, that the court may or may not order the cancellation of an
adverse claim, notwithstanding such provision limiting the effectivity of an adverse claim
for thirty days from the date of registration. The court cannot be bound by such period
as it would be inconsistent with the very authority vested in it.
However, the ruling in Talusan vs. Tayag[6] changed the foregoing doctrine
adhered to by the courts in several cases in the past. The Land Registration Court now
has the authority to act not only on applications for original registration, but also on all
petitions filed after the original registration of title. Coupled with this authority is the
power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or
petitions. Especially where the issue of ownership is ineluctably tied up with the
question of registration, the land registration court commits no error in assuming
jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court, in the recent case, SM Prime Holdings, Inc. vs.Madayag[7],
ruled that to avoid multiplicity of suits and to promote the expeditious resolution of
cases, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 eliminated the distinction between the
general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the latter’s limited jurisdiction when acting
merely as a land registration court. When the law confers jurisdiction upon a court, the
latter is deemed to have all the necessary powers to exercise such jurisdiction to make
it effective.
Land registration courts, as such, can now hear and decide even controversial
and contentious issues, as well as those substantial ones, which may be involved in a
petition for cancellation of adverse claims.
[1] Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 737.