PAGE 3 |
COURSE: LAND TITLESPROFESSOR: DEAN CADIZ10/6/2010
As Justice Vitug explained in Republic v. Court of Appeals, and then Associate Justice Puno reiterated inReyes v. NHA: "In an rem proceeding, condemnation acts upon the property. After condemnation, theparamount title is in the public under a new and independent title; thus, by giving notice to all claimantsto a disputed title, condemnation proceedings provide a judicial process for securing better title againstall the world than may be obtained by voluntary conveyance."
This doctrine was derived from the opinion of then Chief Judge Stephen Breyer in Cadorette v. U.S., thatby giving notice to all claimants to a disputed title, condemnation proceedings provide a judicial processfor securing better title against all the world than may be obtained by voluntary conveyance."
The titles of the Republic, as the predecessor-in-interest of the MANOTOKS, are presumed valid by virtueof their acquisition resulting from the exercise of its inherent power of eminent domain that need not begranted even by the fundamental law. Thus, the alleged flaws concerning the certificates of title issuedprevious to the exercise of the State of its inherent power did not affect or render invalid the subsequenttransfers after the forced sale.
PASIÑO V. MONTERROYO
It is already settled that a counterclaim is considered an original complaint and as such, the attack on thetitle in a case originally for recovery of possession cannot be considered as a collateral attack on the title.
It is true that the indefeasibility of torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. In the instant case, theoriginal complaint is for recovery of possession filed by petitioner against private respondent, not anoriginal action filed by the latter to question the validity of TCT on which petitioner bases its right.
`A counterclaim is considered a complaint, only this time, it is the original defendant who becomes theplaintiff. It stands on the same footing and is to be tested by the same rules as if it were an independentaction.
A notice of lis pendens, once duly registered, may be cancelled by the trial court before which the actioninvolving the property is pending. However, it may only be exercised under exceptional circumstances:a)
Where such circumstances are imputable to the party who caused the annotationb)
Where the litigation was unduly prolonged to the prejudice of the other party because of several continuances procured by petitionerc)
Where the case which is the basis for the lis pendens notation was dismissed for nonprosequitur on the part of the plaintiff d)
Where judgment was rendered against the party who caused such a notation. In suchinstances, said notice is deemed ipso facto cancelled.
CASIM V. REGISTER OF DEEDS
Lis Pendens literally means pending suit. It refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a courtacquires over the property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment.
Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigationwithin the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgmentor decree by subsequent alienation.
Its notice is an announcement to the whole world that a particular property is in litigation and serves as awarning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambleson the result of the litigation over said property.
Sec. 77 of P.D. No. 1529 provides the appropriate measure to have a notice of lis pendens cancelled outfrom the title, that is by presenting to the Register of Deeds, after finality of the judgment rendered in themain action, a certificate executed by the clerk of court before which the main action was pending to theeffect that the case has already been finally decided by the court, stating the manner of the disposalthereof.