LAW AUTHORIZING PETITION FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANNOTATION

(AN ADVERSE CLAIM)

Section 110 of Act 496 or the Land Registration Act reads:

"Sec. 110. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered

lands adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to
the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is
made in this Act for registering the same, make a statement in
writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or
under whom acquired, and a reference to the volume and
page of the certificate of title of the registered owner, and a
description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.

The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the
adverse claimant’s residence, and designate a place at which
all notices may be served upon him. The statement shall be
entitled to registration as an adverse claim, and the court, upon
a petition of any party in interest, shall grant a speedy hearing
upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim and
shall enter such decree therein as justice and equity may
require. If the claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration
shall be cancelled. If in any case, if the court after notice and
hearing shall find that a claim thus registered was frivolous or
vexatious, it may tax the adverse claimant double or treble the
costs in its discretion." (Emphasis supplied)

Such rules on adverse claims were amplified by P.D. 1529, which

provides:

"Sec. 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in

registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising
subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no
other provision is made in this decree for registering the same,
make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or
interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the
number of certificates or title of the registered owner, and a
description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.
 The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the
adverse claimant’s residence, and a place at which all notices
may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to
registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The
adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from
the date of registration. After the lapse of the said period, the
annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled upon filing of a
verified petition therefore by the party in interest: Provided,
however, that after cancellation, no second adverse claim
based on the same ground shall be registered by the same
claimant.

Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest

may file a petition in the Court of First Instance where the land is
situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the
court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the
validity of such adverse claim, and shall render judgment as
may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to
be invalid, the registration thereof shall be ordered cancelled.
If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing shall find that
the adverse claims thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the
claimant in the amount not less than one thousand pesos, nor
more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the
lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse
claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn petition to
that effect." (Emphasis supplied)

ANNOTATION (ADVERSE CLAIM) IS ALREADY INVALID AS CLAIM

THEREIN HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.

Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides that an action "upon a

judgment," i.e., to execute a final and executory
judgment,"must be brought within ten years from the time the
right of action accrues. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS vs.
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER
CEFERINA DIOSANA, and RODOLFO CALDO, G.R. No. 81231
September 19, 1989)

“Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within

ten years from the time the right of action accrues:

xxxx

(3) Upon a judgment

Article 1152 of the Civil Code states:

Art. 1152. The period for prescription of actions to

demand the fulfillment of obligations declared by a
judgment commences from the time the judgment
became final.

Apropos, Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court reads:

Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent

action. A final and executory judgment or order may
be executed on motion within five (5) years from the
date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and
before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a
judgment may be enforced by action. The revived
judgment may also be enforced by motion within
five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter
by action before it is barred by the statute of
limitations.
 The rules are clear. Once a judgment becomes final
and executory, the prevailing party can have it executed
as a matter of right by mere motion within five years from
the date of entry of judgment. If the prevailing party fails
to have the decision enforced by a motion after the lapse
of five years, the said judgment is reduced to a right of
action which must be enforced by the institution of a
complaint in a regular court within ten years from the time
the judgment becomes final.” (Ernesto Villeza vs. German
Management and Services, Inc., et. al., August 8, 2010,
G.R. No. 182937)

This Court cannot just set aside the statute of

limitations into oblivion every time someone cries for
equity and justice. Indeed, if eternal vigilance is the price
of safety, one cannot sleep on one's right for more than a
10th of a century and expect it to be preserved in pristine
purity. Asociacion Cooperativa de Credito Agricola de
Miagao v. Monteclaro, 74 Phil. 281 (1943).

AS IT WERE, THE ANNOTATION AND THE CLAIM THEREIN SAME IS

INVALID. CLEARLY, THE SAME HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.

AS SUCH, THE ANNOTATION AND THE CLAIM THEREIN HAVING NO

FURTHER BASIS IN FACT AND LAW, THE SAME SHOULD ALREADY BE
REMOVED FROM PETITIONER’S TITLE.