EFFECT ON IMPROVEMENT G.R. No. L-11284 October 13, 1917 SIMEON BLAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

VICENTE DE LA CRUZ and MARIANO MELENDRES, as sheriff of Rizal, defendants-appellees. “Buildings” Facts: 1. March 20, 1911: an action was commenced in the Court of Land Registration by the defendant Vicente de la Cruz for the registration under the torrens system of several pieces or parcels of land. 2. June 14, 1912: Simeon Blas presented his opposition, alleging that he was the owner of a portion of the lands described in the petition of the plaintiff. 3. Hearing was had in the Court of Land registration; that portion of the land claimed by Simeon Blas was excluded from the lands included in the petition of the plaintiff Vicente de la Cruz; 4. March 16, 1915: Vicente de la Cruz appealed to the Supreme Court: LC’s decision was modified and that portion which was claimed by Simeon Blas was ordered to be registered in the name of Vicente de la Cruz 5. A final judgment was rendered in the cause and the case was returned to the lower court upon the 19 day of April, 1915; that the land involved in the present action is the same land which was brought into question in the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to. 6. The purpose of the present action was to obtain an injunction against the defendants to prevent them from destroying certain buildings and improvements upon a certain piece or parcel of land particular described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. The present action had it original in the following facts: Issue: WON the decree ordering the registration of land under the Torrens system include the buildings and improvements thereon when they have not been expressly excluded in said decree? Held: YES. 1. The general purpose of the Torrens system is to forever foreclose litigation concerning the title to land. Every decree of registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated by the law. The decree of registration shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, unless fraud is proved within a period of one year after said decree is rendered (section 38 of Act No. 496). 2. Section 39 of said Act (No. 496), makes certain exceptions to the rule just stated. Section 39, as amended, provides that, "every applicant receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration . . . shall hold the same free of all incumbrance except those noted on said certificate, and any of the following incumbrances which may be subsisting, namely:

First. Liens, claims, or rights arising or existing under the laws or Constitution of the United States or of the Philippines Islands which the statutes of the Philippine Islands can not require to appear of record in the registry. Second. Taxes within two years after the same have become due and payable. Third. Any public highway, way, private way established by law, or any Government irrigation canal or lateral therefor, where the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries of such highway, way, or irrigation canal or lateral thereof, have been determined. But if there are easements or other rights appurtenant to a parcel of registered land which for any reason have failed to be registered, such easements or rights shall remain so appurtenant notwithstanding such failure, and shall be held to pass with the land until cut off or extinguished by the registration of the servient estate, or in any other manner. 3. Buildings and improvements upon the land are not included in that exception, and that, unless the objector, during the pendency of the litigation for the registration of land makes claims to improvements of the character of those in the present action, and does have them excluded from the decree of registration, they will be included as a part and parcel and appurtenances to the land; and that the objector will not be permitted, in a separate action subsequently brought, to question the right of such improvements. 4. If he may, then the certificate of registration does not guarantee to the owner of the land the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of his title which the Torrens system was adopted to secure. 5. Plaintiff herein did not, during the pendency of the litigation for the registration of the lands in question, have excluded therefrom and have noted upon the certificate of title his alleged rights and interests in the improvements mentioned herein and noted upon the certificate of title issued 6. He thereby lost his right to such improvements; and therefore, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

filing or entering. lease or other voluntary instrument. 4. 7. It is clear from the foregoing that the registration of the deed is the effectual act which binds the land insofar as third persons are concerned. Jan. Constructive notice upon registration. this petition. Sto. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. 10: Makati RTC: rendered a decision in favor of the Macadangdang spouses: Defendants Emma A. 146553 and a fire insurance policy covering said property. and duly recorded it at the Registry of Deeds of Makati.[9] 6. YES. mortgage.000. The act of registration operates to convey and affect the registered land so that a bonafide purchaser of such land acquires good title as against a prior transferee. The petition lacks merit. The Macadangdang spouses filed a criminal case for estafa against Omalin and a combined action for specific performance. lease or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. – An owner of registered land may convey. judgment. 1987. He may use such forms of deeds. September 1987 to March 9. CA: modified the decision of the Makati RTC: Considering that defendant Omalin remains to be the owner of the property despite the existence of a valid mortgage. 1. Atty. offered to mortgage the subject property to the Martinez spouses for P200. annulment of contract and damages against the spouses Martinez and Omalin. 1987: Macadangdang spouses took possession of the house and lot 5. order. 2. After the Macadangdangs had paid a total of P270. 1986: Macadangdang spouses offered to buy the property from Emma Omalin (Parkhomes Subd.000 on installment basis. Santos was in possession of a ―clean‖ TCT No. Omalin executed a deed of sale with mortgage dated January 5. April 22. Between two transactions concerning the same parcel of land. However. 3. even on the Macadangdang spouses. mortgage. subject to the existing encumbrance and the right of defendants-appellants to foreclose the property should defendant Omalin fail to pay her obligation.R. Omalin executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Macadangdang spouses. instrument or entry affecting registered land shall. Considering that the prior sale of the subject property to the Macadangdang spouses was not registered. 51.000 was to be paid upon delivery of the TCT. No. respondents. 18. if registered. we rule that the sale in favor of plaintiffs-appellee is likewise valid. 4.OTHER IMPORTANT VOLUNTARY DEALINGS MORTGAGE G. Omalin. and in all cases under this Decree. Issue: WON the Martinez spouse has the right to foreclose the property should Omalin fail to pay her obligation? Held.000 but failed to pay the subsequent interest from April 1988 to October 1989 amounting to P114. 2005 SPOUSES BIENVENIDO R. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned. 3. if such prior transfer was unrecorded.a. his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him. a broker. 11. it was binding on Omalin and. Ordering defendants-appellants to deliver the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. a certain Atty. Muntinlupa. – Every conveyance. 146553. mortgage. 1987. be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering. 146553 to plaintiffs-appellees. Hence. 2. are pertinent: Sec. she has the right to sell it.000 through the broker.000. . 1987. upon plaintiffs’ payment of the balance of P100. petitioners vs. Paterno Santos. The deed provided for the payment of the balance of P200. Ramon Martinez and Gloria Martinez are hereby ordered to deliver to the plaintiffs the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 4. 3. that is. they paid another P175.000 in three installments. MACADANGDANG and VIRGINIA C. the registered transaction prevails over the earlier unregistered right. 2. SPOUSES RAMON MARTINEZ and GLORIA F. Sec. 52. lease. subject to the right of defendants-appellants to foreclose the property for failure of defendant Omalin to pay her indebtedness. 1987. December 20. another P30.000. The rule on prior registration is subject only to one exception. 1987.000. The Martinez spouses claimed they had never met the Macadangdang spouses and were unaware that Omalin had already sold the property to them. 9. otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. 30110 of the Register of Deeds of Makati. 1. Hence. lease. Thereafter. It turned out that the property was mortgaged to private respondent spouses Ramon and Gloria Martinez (Martinez spouses).000 as moral damages and P20. 8.000.000. MM – TCT 146553) for P380. 1988: Omalin paid the monthly interest of P6.000 and on October 1. for that matter.000 balance because Omalin failed to deliver the TCT. But no deed. Same date: the Macadangdang spouses made a downpayment of P5. The spouses Martinez accepted the mortgage with interest at 36% p. when a party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at the time he acquires a right to the same land. filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies. the latter did not pay the P110.. the parties to the prior sale. it was the registered mortgage to the spouses Martinez that was valid and effective. Ordering defendant Emma A. 158682. the appellate court declared the Martinez spouses as mortgagees in good faith and innocent mortgagees for value. except a will purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land. Declaring the deed of sale with mortgage in favor of plaintiffs-appellees Bienvenido and Virginia Macadangdang as valid and ordering them to pay defendant Omalin the balance of the price in the sum of P110. Declaring defendants-appellants Ramon and Gloria Martinez as mortgagees in good faith. free from the encumbrance under Entry No. March 5. Tunasan. January 31. MACADANGDANG.000. Omalin to pay plaintiffs-appellees the amount of P30. Nino Realty Services. Hence. January 29.000 as attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Sections 51 and 52 of PD 1529. 5. The proper annotation was made at the back of the title. the parties agreed that the balance of P110. mortgages. they paid P60. On January 3. For sure. the registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies. charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. Inc. 1988. “Sold and Mortgaged” Facts: 1. 6. lien attachment. but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make Registration. MARTINEZ. Prior registration of a lien creates a preference as the act of registration is the operative act that conveys and affects the land.

the latter. for every one dealing with registered property will have to inquire at every instance whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued. they are entitled to be paid the amounts due them under the real estate mortgage registered in their favor. for that matter. Consequently. the instant petition is hereby DENIED and the October 25. the Court cannot disregard such rights. public confidence in the certificate of title and ultimately. not as owners but only as mortgagees. 9. the Martinez spouses acquired a superior right over the property. considering that the registered mortgage attaches to the property. . 8. in the entire Torrens system will be impaired. as declared by the Court of Appeals.7. Where innocent third persons rely on the lack of defect of a certificate of title and acquire rights over the property. On this note. who may have an interest in the mortgaged property like the petitioners herein fail to redeem it from the mortgagees. fails to pay the mortgage obligation or. being innocent registered mortgagees for value. 32018 is AFFIRMED. CV No. 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Otherwise. WHEREFORE. should any party. as mortgagor. In the event Omalin. may enforce their rights against the property by foreclosing on the mortgage. regardless of who its owner may be. The registered mortgage contract of the Martinez spouses has given them the superior right.R.

Having purchased the property with notice of lis pendens. among others. Civil Case No. Appellants opposed the motion to dismiss maintaining that the complaint states a sufficient cause of action and prayed that the motion to dismiss be denied. SP 488. . on October 30. 1966. a notice of lis pendens (Civil Case No. There is no merit in this appeal. Action to quiet title filed by appellants Timoteo Laroza and Conchita Uri in the then Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City versus appellee Donaldo Guia over a parcel of land in San Pablo with coconuts. Appellants. 1973. SP-488 is one of filiation and partition. or if there be any. Issue: WON the plaintiff-appellants (Laroza) are entitled to the said property. Notwithstanding. after they had seen the documents of ownership of said Francisco Guia 3. the same is barred by a prior judgment. for lack of merit. L-45252 January 31. Furtheremore. defendant in SP-488. otherwise. hence. they were constrained to institute the present action. 6. There is no room for doubt or for controversy that all the requisite elements of res judicata or bar by prior judgment are present here. Lower Court. 1. "that the land subject matter of the complaint has already been the subject of a final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. there is no res judicata because there is no Identity of causes of action since the case at bar is an action to quiet title. defendantappellee. etc.. 3. Plaintiffs are the supposed purchasers of the property from Francisco Guia. 7. 4. ACCORDINGLY. its judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution. No. alleged that they bought the above-described property in good faith and for valuable considerations from Francisco Guia on June 30. the purpose of which is to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the Court until the judgment or decree shall have been entered. Rules 13-14 ROC G. Francisco Guia. That they were in continuous possession of the said property from the time they acquired the same from Francisco Guia until appellee intruded upon the said peaceful possession by attempting to survey the above-described property and to partition the same by virtue of a decision of this Honorable Court dated December 29. 1974. plaintiffs (appellants) have no cause of action. whereas. The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reason of public policy and necessity. Hence. appellants bought the land from Francisco Guia. the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Appellants went to the then Court of Appeals alleging that the lower court erred (1) in holding that the instant case is already barred by a previous judgment 8. Held: NO. SP 488) had already been registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City affecting the property." 5. by successive alienation's pending the litigation. vs. Lis pendens is a notice of pending litigation. a warning to the whole world that one who buys the property so annotated does so at his own risk. CA: affirmed the LC’s decision. that the attempt of herein defendant to survey and partition the above-described property beclouds the title of herein plaintiffs for which reason. SP-488. this petition. 1985 TIMOTEO LAROZA and CONCHITA URI. issued an order dismissing appellants' complaint saying that the property is that of the defendant’s as declared final and executor in SP-488. in their complaint. defendant in Civil Case No. 2. appellants took the risk of losing it in case the decision in the said civil case. plaintiffs-appellants. “Notice of Lis Pendens is a notice to the world” Facts: 1. is adverse to their predecessor-in-interest.R. 4. DONALDO GUIA. Records show that long before appellants had acquired subject property.LIS PENDENS Nature Grounds Sec 76 PD 1529. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging. 2.

7. vs.. 1976.C. 97479 had become final and executory because the petition for relief from judgment of the spouses Bazar was filed out of time. 1979. 1979. 1978. 1982. Maria Marasigan" which prayed for a court order requiring the Register of Deeds of Manila to register the deed of sale executed by the Deputy Clerk of Court in behalf of the Bazaars. 97479 entitled "Maria Marron v. January 27. the Registrar of Deeds of Manila then carried over to the new title the notice of lis pendens which the private respondent had caused to be annotated at the back of the Bazar's title. the notice of lis pendens caused to be annotated by Marron on the Bazar's title was carried over on the said new title. 68 SCRA 177). 1987 HEIRS OF MARIA MARASIGAN. No.C. The action sought to compel defendants Bazar to execute a registrable Deed of Absolute Sale of their lot covered by T. 1976 in Civil Case No. the Deputy Clerk of Court was advised to secure a court order in order that the new title issued in the name of herein petitioner Maria Marasigan could be cancelled.C. Bazaar" was filed before the then Court of First Instance of Manila.00).C.C.T. In case of subsequent sales or transfers.T.R. We find no merit in the present petition. 3. 1975. Anicia. “Late Registration” Facts: 1. the private respondent caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of T. 97479 had not yet become final and executory considering that it was still the subject of a petition for relief from judgment. the CFI of Manila dismissed Marron's complaint for being premature since the decision rendered by the CFI. April 24. Isabel. this petition. 6.000. The above judgment became final and executory so Maria Marron filed a motion for execution which was granted. Marron instituted L. namely. and Francisco.. 97479 favoring the plaintiff and against the defendants: Bazars as vendors to execute in favor of Marron a Deed of Absolute Sale in a public instrument over the residential lot covered by TCT No. Hence. 100612 in favor of Maria Marron. On September 6. he may be held civilly and even criminally liable for any prejudice caused to innocent third persons (The Director of Lands. 8. L-69303 July 23. Constructive notice upon registration. There is no question that when the late Maria Marasigan was issued her transfer certificate of title to the subject property (T. While their petition was still pending. 1977 that said deed was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Manila. all surnamed Marasigan. the parties submitted said case for decision. — Every conveyance . 100612 was cancelled and a new title was issued in Maria Marasigan's name. When the Register of Deeds of Manila issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. No. 2. 12. 1976. Issue: WON the Heirs of Marasigans are the legal owners of the land in question. Marron filed another case docketed as Civil Case No. 1974. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision reads: WHEREFORE. 9. 126056).T. 1977 when it was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Manila. judgment was rendered in Civil Case No. the lower court finally ordered the Clerk of Court to execute the deed of sale in behalf of the erring spouses. 1984: CA ruled that Marron is entitled to the property under litigation by virtue of the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of Maria Marasigan's title. the Bazaars filed a petition for relief from the judgment dated February 24. they moved to set aside the said judgment on June 22. if he cancels any notice of lis pendens in violation of his duty. 126056 in the name of Maria Marasigan and issue another in the name of Maria Marron by virtue of the Deed of Sale executed by the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch XIII. A notice of lis pendens means that a certain property is involved in a litigation and serves as notice to the whole world that one who buys the same does it at his own risk (Rehabilitation . No. the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and another one entered — (a) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Manila to cancel T. 1977. however. a deed of absolute sale T. Maximina. the transaction became effective as against third persons only on July 5. 52. v. Reyes. 1980. 97479 was still pending. Case No. filing or entering. while Civil Case No. May 26. The appellate court further ruled that the decision in Civil Case No. No. On July 30. on February 24. No.C. There is a clear showing that although the late Maria Marasigan acquired the property in question from the Bazaars pursuant to a deed of absolute sale on December 18. On the other hand.R. if registered. petitioners. 100612 was executed by Fe S. filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies. as amended by Section 52 of the Property Registration Decree (P. be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering. the Registrar of Deeds is duty bound to carry over the notice of lis pendens on all titles to be issueds. together with the Owner's copy of said Transfer Certificate of Title No. Bazar in favor of Maria Marasigan for and in consideration of the sum of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15. Civil Case No. 100612. When the said deed was presented to the Register of Deeds of Manila for registration. February 24. T. affecting registered land shall. However. No. It is the act of registration which creates constructive notice to the whole world. Section 51 of Act 496.G. et al. The spouses Bazar. Consequently. 2. 1976. 126378 to have Marasigan's TCT 126056 cancelled conformably to the procedure outlined in the decision of the above land registration court. 1. Teofilo. 5. Otherwise. 13. 97479. Felicisimo Bazar and Fe S. 1529) provides: Sec. 7680 captioned "Maria Marron v. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and MARIA MARRON. August 7. 1979 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over their persons. 126056 naming Maria Marasigan as the new owner of Lot 2-A. 3. respondents. It appears that on December 18. it was only on July 5.C. 1974 or a little over four months before the filing of Civil Case No.D. 100612 and to deliver to plaintiff sufficient copies of such deed of sale. No.T. February 18. On November 29. 10. 100612 4.T. Branch XIII in Civil Case No. Held: NO.T. A writ of execution was issued by the court on July 12. 97479. Said case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice on the part of the petitioner to institute the appropriate civil action before the proper court… 11. refused to surrender their title to the property in question and to execute the required deed of sale in Marron's favor.

There may have been some errors in the computations but the petition itself was out of time. 1976. Section 3 of said Rules provides. The 60-day period must be reckoned from May 12.. 6. Time for filing petition. 5. the February 24. The 30-day period under the old rule (Rule 41. 4. WHEREFORE. 101 Phil. Any transaction effective during the period of litigation is subject to the risks implicit in the notice of lis pendens and to the eventual outcome of the litigation. . in part. filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. . we agree with the finding of the appellate court that the petition for relief from judgment by the Bazaars dated May 26. On June 11. Morales. 1976 when the Bazaars were served with a copy of the assailed decision. Moreover. — A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this rule must be verified. It was also a clear notice to Maria Marasigan that there was a court case affecting her rights to the property she had purchased. The late Marasigan's transferors did not interpose any appeal from the adverse judgment dated February 24. It was only after 379 days or more than 12 months after they learned of the judgment that the Bazaars filed their petition for relief from said judgment. At this point after the finality of the said decision. the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. 1976.. The appellate court's decision is AFFIRMED.. the Bazaars no longer had the right to alienate the property subject of the litigation. section 3 of the Revised Rules of court) within which the Bazaars may have taken an appeal started to run from May 12.. Therefore. order or other proceeding to be set aside. 1976 decision in Civil Case No. 97479. that: Sec. . 97479 became final and executory. 1976 when they were served with a copy of the said decision. 3.Finance Corporation v. 171). in view of all the foregoing. Rule 38. the 60-day period expired on July 11. and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or order was entered or such proceeding was taken. 1976 in Civil Case No. 1977 was filed beyond the two periods provided in Section 3 Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court.

for short) to guarantee a loan of P550. 7546) only. That order in effect had placed plaintiffs at a disadvantage. was properly and legally ordered cancelled. Plaintiffs were thus deprived of their right to be heard on notice. the order directing the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens should be set aside: First. HON. respectively. 296 was cancelled and a new TCT No. There is no showing that the notice of lis pendens "is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party. The temporary restraining order issued by the court is hereby made permanent. Upon knowing this. respondents. Bautista filed an ex-parte petition before the lower court for the issuance of a certificate of final conveyance (sale) over the two properties. the latter to assume the obligation of paying the outstanding balance of the mortgage to the Manila Bank. vs. Angel L. St. 1984 LEONORA A. Held: NO The petitioner. or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded.09. ANGEL L. 434. especially when such cancellation was ordered without notice to plaintiff's counsel. Second. 11. 296 for the amount of P28. They mortgaged the two properties to the Manila Banking Corporation (Manila Bank. Bautista thereafter filed an ex-parte manifestation and motion praying for the cancellation of Entry No.CANCELLATION G. defendants should thereafter sell the land to a purchaser in good faith and for value ? Third. 296 was likewise delivered to her by the Manila Bank. GREGORIO G. 3. Within the one year redemption period. Peter's College. the Register of Deeds of Iligan City cancelled the adverse claim and notice of lis pendens. Within almost the same period. CFI: After trial. Bautista. Angel Bautista paid the amount of P148. which the trial court granted. petitioner. 7546. as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. failed to pay the assumed obligation and as a result. 24992) for Specific Performance with Damages before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Hence. Ortiz. TCT No.05 to the Manila Bank as payment of the redemption price of the two parcels of land. Branch XXI. The Manila Bank issued a certificate of redemption in favor of Angel Bautista with respect to the land with TCT No. the Court ruled: A trial court commits grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens on a certificate of title where there was no unnecessary delay attributable to plaintiff and his counsel in the resolution of the main case for annulment of said certificate. under Entry No. the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Angel L. after the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in the office of the Register of Deeds. BAUTISTA and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILIGAN CITY. Inc. 5. By virtue of such certificate of final conveyance. Leonora Punongbayan caused the annotation of an adverse claim and notice of lis pendens at the back of TCT No. With costs against the private respondent Angel L. No. Peter's College. 19417 and filed before the lower court a motion to set aside the order of the respondent judge directing the issuance of a certificate of final conveyance (sale). Leonora Punongbayan redeemed the property with TCT No. 2. alleging that the redemption referred to his property only as the other property with TCT No." 10 In view of the foregoing. sold the property with TCT No. were the owners of two parcels of land described in TCT No.00. 434. 9.316. which the latter refused to accept and instead made several demands from the Manila Bank to issue a certificate of redemption in his favor with respect to the two parcels of land. Esteban et al.000. What if. by virtue of such order. Inc. 10. the writ prayed for is hereby GRANTED and the questioned order directing cancellation of the notice of lis pendens is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.. . the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned order directing the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens without notice to the party who caused its annotation. the properties were extrajudicially foreclosed and sold at public auction to the Manila Bank as the highest bidder for the price of P131.467. Angel L. 296 had been redeemed by Leonora Punongbayan. et al.09 and a certificate of redemption was issued in her favor and the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. (last paragraph of Section 24. Rule 14 of Rules of Court) In the case of Sarmiento vs. the order dismissing the complaint had not yet become final. 19417. 10937 (formerly TCT No. Leonora Punongbayan and St. Bautista. 1. The Register of Deeds of Iligan City is hereby ordered to reannotate the notice of lis pendens on TCT No. It opened the floodgate to the commission of a fraud. it was granted ex-parte. which the trial court denied. 19417 was issued in the name of Angel L. Thus. The trial court issued an order granting the motion without giving Leonora Punongbayan a chance to be heard.R. Pending appeal. Branch XXI. Bautista..327.327. Subsequently. Thus a complaint was filed by Angel Bautista against the Manila Bank (Civil Case No. 9 And in the case of Natano vs. “Hearing Before Cancellation of Lis Pendens” Facts: 1. 7. L-58193 August 30. T-19417. WHEREFORE. this petition for certiorari with preliminary mandatory injunction with prayer for a restraining order to annul and set aside the order of respondent judge with respect to the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens to reannotate the notice of lis pendens Issue: WON the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of TCT No. 6. however. The rule for the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens provides that there should be notice to the party who caused it to be recorded so that he may be given a chance to be heard and show to the court that the notice is not for the purpose of molesting the adverse party and that it is necessary to protect his right. The Manila Bank denied the request. The Manila Bank likewise returned to Angel Bautista the amount of P28. PINEDA. which the trial court denied. 7546 to Angel Bautista. Leonora Punongbayan then filed a motion to set aside such order.58. CA: The Manila Bank appealed to the Court of Appeals. the Court ruled For three reasons. 296 and TCT No. 4. Leonora Punongbayan claims that the cancellation was illegal since no notice was sent to her concerning the hearing of the motion for cancellation of said annotation and was consequently denied the right to be heard. 8. PUNONGBAYAN. Angel Bautista.

the register of deeds shall proceed to cancel the lis pendens annotation.426. filed a motion in the Court of First Instance praying that the plaintiff.000 in actual cash and assumed the payment of the mortgages. no further evidence appears to have been presented. Five days later. we cannot say that the court below erred in requiring him to give bond in the modest sum of P5. on May 21. Ordinarily a notice of pendency which has been filed in a proper case cannot be cancelled. petitioner. 1922: Victoriano purchased a lot. 7. Apparently becoming impatient. So ordered. . Held: NO 1. The other mortgage was held by the Shanghai Life Insurance Company. where it eventually was consolidated with the action for the annulment of the aforesaid documents. 9. and no evidence was taken until February 27 of the present year. The present petition for a writ of prohibition was thereupon brought before this court. that should he FAIL to do so. 1928. transfer certificate of title to the property was issued in favor of Gonzalez. SISON. the courts had no power to order the cancellation of the notice before a final judgment of the case to which it related had been rendered. respondents. The petitioner failed to pay the rent. L-33770 August 8. When we further take into consideration that the rent stipulated in the lease was P700 per month and that the petitioner therefore must have owed Gonzalez over P17. leaving it without effect. 8. Jose Martinez de San Agustin. Municipal court refused to take jurisdiction of the unlawful detainer suit and certified it to the Court of First Instance. and the petitioner paid only P8. from one Narciso Javier for the sum of P80. and. it seems that it eventually became necessary for Gonzalez to settle the matter with the insurance company in order to protect the second mortgage held by him. provided. except in cases expressly provided for by statute. 12. But there may be exceptions. He must also be held responsible for most of the continuances of the trial of the two cases before the Court of First Instance. “Bond for Lis Pendens” Facts: 1. FRANCISCO J. The accounts then showed that. The other document was a lease of the property executed by Gonzalez in favor of the petitioner. Pedro Ma. Issue: WON the judges exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens. 4. The cases were again continued. May 3.61 6. The property was incumbered with two mortgages to the total amount of P72. but the then acting judge. for the annulment of the documents executed on May 3. denied the motion. the petitioner organized a school named "Colegio Liceo de Manila" of which he was the director. and the evidence he has presented up to the present time does not bear out the main allegations of the complaint. Gonzalez threatened to foreclose the mortgages and thus compelled the petitioner to make a settlement so as to prevent the transfer of the school to other quarters. when Doctor Victoriano and three of his assistants testified. Judges of First Instance. 1930 PACIFICO VICTORIANO. 14. and on May 2.500. and the property referred to was used for the purposes of the school.G.. Pacifico Victoriano. The petitioner seems to have been unable to pay the interest on the mortgages. and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF THE CITY OF MANILA. the amount due Gonzalez on the mortgages was P78. Judge Rovira: this court issued an order to the plaintiff advising him that if he desired to have the lis pendens annotation continued.000 in overdue rent.000. 11. had filed a notice of lis pendens with the register of deeds of Manila. 5. The respondent Gonzalez also seems to have had an interest in the school and held one of the mortgages which was given as security for the sum of P47. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA and PEDRO MA. the defendant Gonzalez. A motion for reconsideration was presented by Doctor Victorano's counsel. The petitioner did not bring his action until over a year after the sale to Gonzalez. 3. so far.000 and in ordering the cancellation of the list pendens in the event that the petitioner failed to present the bond. be ordered to give a bond in the sum of P10. 1929. with a view to hold possession of the property in question as long as possible without paying rent. including overdue interest. and as we cannot hold that the court below exceeded such jurisdiction. May 29. In the meantime. The cases were assigned for hearing several times. the stipulated rent being P700 per month. the petition is denied with the costs against the petitioner. GONZALEZ. vs. 1928. Ltd. the remaining part of purchase money. 2.000 to respond for the damages resulting from the fact that said plaintiff.R. the petitioner maintaining that his notice of lis pendens was duly filed in accordance with the provisions of section 79 of the Land Registration Act and that under our laws. he must within five days from notice hereof give bond in the amount of five thousand pesos to answer for any damages that may be occasioned the defendant by such annotation. and in the beginning of May. 1928. JOSE MARTINEZ DE SAN AGUSTIN. on the ground that he. Two days later. 5. Sison. which prevented Gonzalez from disposing of the property in question. and it has been held that a court has the inherent power in the absence of statute to cancel a lis pendens in a proper case. 3. two documents were executed.000. 2. Writs of prohibition go to the jurisdiction. 10. however. with the buildings thereon. one of which was a deed of sale to Gonzalez of the petitioner's remaining interest in the aforesaid property in consideration of the payment of P2. No. 4. the petitioner was led to execute said documents by reason of insidious and fraudulent machinations of the defendants and by their threats. but were continued at the instance of counsel for the herein petitioner. while the action is pending and undetermined. and it being a first mortgage. in connection with the action brought by him.000. an action of unlawful detainer was brought against him by Gonzalez in the municipal court of the City of Manila. the petitioner brought an action against Gonzalez and the latter's attorney. 13.

4. So ordered. Wherefore. 1928. the dismissal having taken place on July 2. the herein plaintiffs-appellants lost the benefit of the lis pendens In view of the foregoing. claiming that the contract of sale Exhibit A be declared rescinded and that an order be issued directing the cancellation of certificate of title No. CARMEN JULIANA GARRICHO and FRANCISO AGUADO. the character of res judicata and consequently the order of dismissal does not finally determine the controversy and is not appealable. Lazaro and Maria Simon filed a complaint. 5073. “Non-appearance!” Facts: 1. in which case the said dismissal shall not be a bar to another action for the same cause. 9303 of the registry of deeds of Nueva Ecija and the issuance of another in lieu thereof in the name of the said plaintiffs-appellants. defendants. such dismissal does not therefore give to the subject matter so dismissed. Section 127. 1929. 1929: the plaintiffs filed a motion for reinstatement -. 000 (Exhibit B) and the second for P6. LAZARO. 1929. 5073. which notice was noted on the back of said certificate of title No. m. . FELICIANA MARIANO. 9303. L-39433 CLEMENTE A. provides that the court may dismiss an action when the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial. 5073 on the back of the certificate of title No. and Feliciana Mariano Sarangaya). upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear. 5. with costs against the appellants. this court is of the opinion and so holds: (1) That the order dismissing a civil case. 9303.denied September 11. de Sarangaya. upon petition of the defendant’s counsel. which was done on June 10..500 (Exhibit C). constituted two mortgages on the parcel of land described in the aforementioned certificate of title No. 5073 was called for hearing. which eliminated it from the court’s docket. the court.R. and the defendant appears and asks for the dismissal. 3. 1930. it is hereby affirmed in toto. operates as a cancellation of the notation of lis pendens. there will be no pending case before the court. 4. 1929: the order of dismissal dated July 2. to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. No. 3. a notice of lis pendens was filed in the office of the register of deeds of Nueva Ecija. 2. Upon failure to resort to either remedy. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to appear and their counsel was not ready for trial. 5. case 2. By provision of law. is not final and does not constitute res judicata.vs. 1929: Feliciana Mariano. which may be noted in the registry of deeds. operated as a cancellation of the notation of the pendency thereof. 9303 is legal and valid and operated as a cancellation of the notation of the notice of lis pendens. not appealable. November 26. Issue: Whether or not the notation of the order of dismissal of civil case No. and (2) that the dismissal of a civil case upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear. July 30. 2. not finding any error in the appealed judgment. the defendant in the aforesaid civil case No.. appellees.G. in favor of the herein defendants-appellees Carmen Juliana Garricho and Francisco Aguado: the first mortgage for the sum of P10. was noted on the back of said certificate of title No. 9303. ET AL. ET AL. The plaintiff has no other remedy but to ask for the reinstatement of the case or to file another complaint upon the same cause. November 26. At any rate. September 23. Held: 1. in accordance with the provisions of section 122 of the same Code. 1929: the aforementioned civil case No. dismissed the case. due to the delay in the filing of the new complaint. at 11:03 a. of the Code of Civil Procedure. July 2. 1928: plaintiffs-appellants Clemente A.. July 27. against Feliciana Mariano (alias Feliciana Mariano Vda. plaintiffs-appellants. and therefore. The notation of the order of dismissal issued in civil case No.

No. On 3 June 1957 the petitioners filed an objection thereto. of the Rule of Court. LRC (GLRO) Rec. L-13389-90 September 30. was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds on 9 May 1957 (entry No. insofar as it affects Lot No. 496. not having been registered. 5. and MONTELIBANO SUBDIVISIONS. registered in the names of Alfredo Montelibano and Alejandro M. Lacson. 7. Psd-12392. payable by installment. . 4272) and. and Montelibano Subdivisions filed a motion in the CFI of Occidental Negros alleging that Lot No. They prayed that the Register of Deeds of the province of Occidental Negros be directed to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated on the back of TCT No. L-13390 1. The lots continue or remain the property of the registered owners. T-5979. 28 of the same subdivision plan. which mortgaged was duly noted at the back of TCT No. yet "The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land . 9. Lacson. G. covered by TCT No. 2.. Lacson and Marcelino Lalantakan. movants-appellees. 29 of June 1936: the vendee paid in full the agreed price of the parcel of land and on the same date the vendors executed the deed of sale in his favor. 6 May 1957: same petitioners filed a motion in the same court and cadastral case alleging that Lot No. payable by installment. On 11 November 1957 the Court denied their motion. 6. respectively. Same facts… mortgage… brought a case against Alfredo… Issue: WON Held: 1. the unrecorded right acquired by the vendees in the lots sold to them is subject or subordinate to the right of the plaintiffs in whose favor judgment is rendered. Rule 7. after the notice of lis pendens had been noted on back of the title to the property on 12 March 1957. 3. 21 of subdivision plan No. . Montelibano. was sold to Marcelino Lalantakan of Silay. in Cadastral Case No. 29 January 1957: the mortgagee executed a deed of release of real estate mortgage on the parcel of land in question 5. who caused a notice of lis pendens to be annotated in the title to all the realities of the defendant in the province of Occidental of Negros. 2. 4. Lacson free from the annotation of the notice of lis pendens. the notice of lis pendens noted on the certificate of title to the lots loses its efficacy or is ipso facto cancelled. Although an unrecorded sale of a parcel of land registered under the Torrens System is binding upon the parties." Such being the law any acquired right in a registered land is effective as between and binding upon the parties and their privies but not as to third parties. 3. The orders appealed from are reversed. The parcels of land in question covered by transfer certificates of title Nos. Lacson of Silay.G. T-5979. Occidental Negros. the deed of sale in favor of Marcelino Lalantakan executed by the vendors on 29 June 1936 was not registered at all. If judgment is rendered against the plaintiffs in the action. August 1947. 12 March 1957: Alfredo L. 2. such notice cannot be cancelled upon motion of the vendors or vendees predicated upon the fact that the vendees had acquired the lots prior to the noting of the notice of lis pendens. 24 September 1954: vendee paid in full the agreed price of the parcel of land and on the same date the vendors executed the deed of sale in her favor 4. If judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in the action brought against the registered owners. Inc. and that the vendee was an innocent purchaser. 8. including that sold to Corazon J. was sold to Corazon J. Act No. such sales do not affect third parties. T-5979. T-5986. a part of Lot No. covered by TCT No. 21. 5979 and 5986 were registered in the name of Alfredo Montelibano and Alejandro Montelibano and Alejandro M. Occidental Negros. the vendors mortgaged the said parcel of land together with other properties of the petitioners to the Philippine National Bank. 86. Montelibano. INC. Hence this appeal interposed by the oppositors. The deed of sale in favor of Corazon J. share and share alike. and section 24. The sale made of the two lots by the registered owners to Corazon J. On 22 May 1957 the oppositors Alfredo L. . Montelibano. vs. pursuant to the provisions of section 79. In the second case. acting as land registration court. registered also in the names of Alfredo Montelibano and Alejandro M. 1960 CAPITOL SUBDIVISION. Montelibano and Concepcion Montelibano Hojilla brought an action against Alfredo Montelibano in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros civil case No.R. And when the latter are sued by a party concerning or involving or affecting the lots thus sold by the registered owners and the suing party causes a notice of lis pendens to be noted on the back of the certificates of title to the lots sold. 48590). Bacolod Branch. with costs against the petitioners and appellees. . ALFREDO LOPEZ MONTELIBANO and CONCEPCION MONTELIBANO HOJILLA. and issue the corresponding transfer certificate of title in favor of Corazon J. 3. share and share alike. No.R. “Late Registration” Facts: These are appeals from two orders entered by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros. GRANTED. Nos. executed by the vendors on 24 September 1954. GR 13389 1. 77 of the Silay Cadastre. April 10 1957: Capitol Subdivision. Montelibano and Concepcion Montelibano Hojilla filed a motion for reconsideration. oppositorsappellants. as amended.

to said respondent. Petitioners.. the reason being that the filing of a record on appeal is more expressive of the intention to appeal than the filing of notice to do so. 1. on the informacion posesoria of Maria's father. successor of Alinsunurin. Consequently. from taking possession and/or exercising acts of ownership. 13. a reversal of a judgment is binding only on the parties in the suit but does not control the interest of the parties who did not join or were not made parties to the appeal. 10. We have held that filing of the record on appeal on time necessarily implies the filing of a notice on appeal and is equivalent thereto. public and peaceful possession as coowners of the land subject herein since time immemorial. 9. No. "have all been in actual. but where the rights and liabilities of those who did not appeal and those of the parties appealing are so interwoven and dependent on each other as to be inseparable. Tamayo's pleading in the record's of LRC N-675 on January 3. 1976 THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS. It must be remembered that the appeal of the petitioners is from the entire judgment in LRC N-675 and not merely from separate and distinct portions thereof.R. LRC Rec. her late father Melecio Padilla. It must be noted that respondent Tamayo's formal entry as . and the alleged continuous. this Court issued a restraining order enjoining (a) the respondent judge from issuing a writ of possession in LRC No. together with respondent Roman C. Maria Padilla and before her.R. insofar as respondent Tamayo is concerned. On June 5. L-27594 February 27. It is not disputed that the evidence in support of the claim of title of respondent Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation is the same as that and inseparable from that of respondent Roman C Tamayo. This communality of interest was further shown during the hearing. Accordingly. continuous. Tamayo and Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation. vs. respondents. Thus. when the counsel for respondent Tamayo did not present any evidence of his own but merely joined Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation. 5. all their agents or representatives. immediately furnished a copy of their second motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal. Besides. There is no question that the record on appeal and the amended record on appeal were filed within the period granted by the court. N-675. 7. REYES. 0-3151 under Entry No. For whether or not an appeal by one or several parties in the case will affect the liability of those who did not appeal must depend upon the facts of each particular case. N-675. Tamayo. who obtained same from the Spanish government under possessory information title granted on February 5. or to consider the judgment final as to said party. peaceful and adverse possession over the land under concept of ownership since time immemorial of their aforementioned predecessors-in-interest. were denied their day in court. in his answer in LRC N-675. et al. 1967 in the memorandum of encumbrances on Original Certificate of Title No. SALVADOR C. Tamayo's alleged title to 1/3 pro indiviso of the land. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NUEVA ECIJA. Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation's alleged ownership of 2/3 of the property pro indiviso is concerned would necessarily result in the reversal of the judgment with regard to respondent Roman C. "in favor of appellant Alipio Alinsunurin. 12032/0-3151. HON. Moreover. the reversal of the judgment insofar V. No. a reversal of the judgment as to one would operate as a reversal as to all. a notice of lis pendens which is duly entered and annotated on June 23. Tamayo. Melecio Padilla. ROMAN C . with the first two to have 2/3 interest and the last 1/3 interest". and the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1895 . applicant-appellee. G. oppositors-appellants. it may be recalled that the notice of lis pendens was entered on the Day Book (Primary Entry Book) of the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija on April 12. as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. No. petitioners. upon their discovery of the existence of Roman C. and if such evidence of the former is considered untenable. namely.G. PARANAQUE INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 6. and therefore. guidance of the members of the bar and the information of the parties. respondent Tamayo did not assert a claim adverse to that of the appellant Alinsunurin. now substituted by PARAÑAQUE INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. no substantial right of respondent Tamayo appears to have impaired by the non-service of the notice of appeal to said party. 1967. Alipio Alinsunurin (now succeeded by Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation) and Roman Tamayo based their claim of title as heirs of the deceased Maria Padilla. of the court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. by themselves or through their predecessorsin interest. however. For the. petitioners' failure to serve respondent Tamayo a copy of the notice of appeal within thirty (30) days after notice of judgment cannot considered enough ground to dismiss the appeal with respect to said respondent. As to the claim of respondent Paranaque and Development Corporation that Honofre Andrada. In any case. L-28144 February 27. 1976 ALIPIO ALINSUNURIN. be useful to explain further why the judgment. but on the contrary. The infirmity of the grounds asserted by respondent-appellee. it should be noted that such claim is not asserted by the party directly involved. Ordinarily. 11. The copy of the motion of said respondent to lift partially the Order of General Default and the copy of the order of the respondent court granting said motion were not served upon petitioners. 2. in its Second Motion for Reconsideration would have been easily discernible from a careful reading of the judgment of this Court. it is inconceivable how the latter respondent's claim of title could stand by itself. occupancy or possession over the property in question subject matter of LRC No. the decree was issued arbitrarily and the Torrens Certificate of Title based thereon a nullity." and prayed that the title be registered in favor of the testate estate of Maria Padilla". or in the alternative. alleged that he and the afore-mentioned appellant Alinsunurin and his wife. 1967. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY and the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES."oppositor"" in LRC N-675 was apparently done without the knowledge of petitioners. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY. 8. has not become final during the pendency of the appeal. 1967. Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation. 12. as well as the copies of the original and amended record on appeal. petitioners filed with the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija. it may. vs. Branch III. 3. TAMAYO. and (c) restraining the Register of Deeds from accepting for registration documents referring to the subject land until petitioners shall have filed a notice of lis pendens as to the title certificates of Roman C. 4. in the presentation of its evidence. N-25545. (b) the respondents Paranaque Investment and Development Corporation and Roman C. there being no showing that it had adversely affected any substantial right of said respondent.. as follows: . however.

It is. of course. It is not necessary that the notice of lis pendens be annotated on the back of the corresponding original certificate of title. said parties are bound by the judgment against the transferor.Judge Florencio Aquino in Civil Case No. . 4696 on September 23. levy on execution and lis pendens entry thereof on the Day Book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. It is well-settled that in "in involuntary registration such as an attachment. but this is an official duty of the Register of Deeds. manifest from the foregoing that the order of ." was made subsequent to and entry. which may be presumed to have been regularly performed. be annotated on the back of the corresponding original certificate of title. therefore. et al. 1968 for the issuance of "clean transfer certificate of title to Honofre Andrada. The notice should. ACCORDINGLY." 4 Being transferees pendente lite. the Second Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful