THIRD DIVISION
|
EMMA
VER-REYES, Petitioner, - versus - HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 153263
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: August
28, 2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
For
resolution is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Decision[1]
dated
Petitioner
Emma Ver-Reyes claims to have acquired a 41,837-square-meter lot (Lot No. 6961
Psd-20246, Imus Estate, G.L.S.O. Record No. 8843) located in Dasmariñas, Cavite
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 58459 in the name of the
spouses Marciano and Virginia Cuevas by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale[3]
dated October 8, 1976 executed by the latter in her favor. While she religiously paid the real estate
taxes on the property, petitioner failed to register her title over the same.
Later,
it appeared that the Cuevas spouses executed another Deed of Absolute Sale[4] on
When
this came to her knowledge, petitioner filed on
After
trial, the RTC, Branch 21,
Petitioner
appealed the RTC Decision to the CA on
Acting
on this information, petitioner conducted an investigation, and her inquiry revealed
the following:
1.
Respondent Irene Montemayor executed
on January 15, 1998 a Waiver and Quitclaim,[6]
recognizing the genuineness of TCT No. 769357 in the name of Engracia Isip which had been transferred to her heirs
(Apolonia I. R. Alcaraz, Eliza I. Reyes-Gloria, Victor Isip Reyes and Epitacio
Isip Reyes) covered by TCT No. T-784707, declaring that all documents relative
to the issuance of subsequent TCTs, including TCT No. 369793 in her name were
simulated and fictitious, and renouncing all her claims to the property in
favor of Engracia and her heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns.
2.
The Register of Deeds of Cavite, notwithstanding being impleaded as a
party to the pending appeal before the CA, cancelled TCT No. T-369793[7] in
the name of respondent by virtue of the Waiver and Quitclaim. It also caused the annotation of the Waiver
and Quitclaim on both TCT Nos. T-369793 and T-784707[8] in
the name of Engracia’s heirs.
3.
The technical descriptions under TCT Nos. T-769357[9]
and T-784707 showed that the property described therein is the same property
subject of the pending appeal before the CA.
4.
The basis of Engracia’s title under TCT No. 769357 is Bureau of Lands
Sales Contract/Certificate No. V-139[10]
dated
5.
The subject parcel of land was originally part of Original Certificate
of Title No. 1002 (RT-17577)[12]
under the name of the Republic of the
6.
By virtue of the above Certificate No. V-139 and Deed of Conveyance No.
V-9039, both in favor of Engracia, TCT No. 13105[13]
dated
7.
There were a series of conveyances made and several titles were issued
thereon – TCT No. 13105 was cancelled and TCT No. 13113[14]
dated April 26, 1965 was issued to Rosalinda Puspos; TCT No. 13113 was
cancelled and TCT No. T-45574[15]
dated July 20, 1970 was issued in favor of Belen R. Carungcong (pursuant to a
Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 21, 1970 executed by Rosalinda Puspos); TCT
No. T-45574 was cancelled and TCT No. T-57845[16]
dated
8.
Notwithstanding the foregoing transfers of title, TCT No. T-769357
dated
9.
TCT No. T-784707 in the name of Engracia’s heirs was issued by virtue
of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Engracia Isip[18]
dated
10.
TCT No. T-784707 dated P6,500,000.00 on
On
In a letter dated
1.
The cancelled title of IRENE VILLAMAYOR
[sic] (TCT No. T-369993) does not bear an inscription as to the pendency of
Civil Case No. 878-94 involving the said property;
2.
Further, the title of the Heirs of
Engracia Isip (TCT No. T-784707) did not originate from the cancelled title of
Irene Montemayor (TCT No. T-369793);
3.
That the Waiver/Quitclaim was done in
recognition of a better and stronger title and to avoid unnecessary, time
consumming [sic] and costly legal conprontation [sic] between the parties;
4.
That the title of the Isips (TCT No.
T-784707) is a derivative title from TCT No. T-769357 (Engracia Isip) which
originated from a Deed of Conveyance duly issued by the Land Management Bureau,
an immediate transfer from OCT No. 1002 (Republic of the
5. That the late Engracia Isip nor her heirs were not a party to the ongoing court litigation between Emma Ver Reyes, et al. vs. Irene Montemayor, et al., hence, the said notice of Lis Pendens does not meet the necessary requirement of its registrability.[21]
Petitioner elevated the matter to the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) via Consulta No. 3039 dated
Petitioner moved to reconsider the
Resolution dated
In a petition for review under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court, petitioner questioned before the CA the Resolution
dated
In the Decision[24]
promulgated on January 18, 2002, the CA denied the petition on the ground that
the stance taken by the LRA was the most logical under the circumstances; and
while the remedy of a notice of lis pendens is for the protection of third
parties, it should not prejudice the right of the party in whose favor the
property is titled without him being impleaded in the pending case.
Petitioner filed her motion for
reconsideration of the CA Decision but said motion was denied, for lack of
merit, in the Resolution[25]
dated
This Court is of the opinion and so holds that if it is desired to have a Notice of Lis Pendens annotated, it must appear that the present registered owners are impleaded in the pending case. We do not argue with the petitioner’s contention that “it is not necessary for the applicant to prove his ownership or interest over the property sought to be effected by lis pendens” (citing Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 298). But what We are saying is that the notice of Lis Pendens should not prejudice the right of the party in whose favor the property is duly titled without giving them their day in court.
Thus,
this petition, raising the sole issue of whether the Register of Deeds was
justified, under the attendant circumstances, in denying the annotation of the Notice
of Lis Pendens on TCT No. T-784707.
Petitioner
maintains that it is required neither under Section 14[26]
of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court nor under Section 76[27]
of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) that a
registered owner of real property should first be impleaded in the pending case
for a notice of lis pendens to be annotated in a TCT. She posits that these provisions do not state
the grounds to justify the refusal by the Register of Deeds and/or the LRA to
effect the said annotation. Petitioner
also cites Voluntad v. Spouses Dizon[28]
wherein the annotation of a notice of lis pendens was allowed on the TCT of
Carmen and Maria Voluntad despite the registered owners not being parties to
the pending case.
Petitioner
further claims that the duty to record the notice of lis pendens filed by a
party to a pending case is ministerial on the part of the Register of Deeds of
the province where the property is located as long as the requisites for the
recording thereof – the names of the parties, the object of the action or
defense, and a description of the property in that province affected thereby –
are indicated in the notice.
Citing
our rulings that a notation of lis pendens does not create a right or a lien
upon the subject property,[29]
and that the applying party is not required to prove his right or interest over
the property on which the notice is sought to be annotated,[30]
petitioner argues that the annotation of the notice of lis pendens under the
circumstances would only serve as a warning to third parties that the real
property is subject to a pending litigation such that persons dealing with it
would do so at their own risk, and it would not, in any way, prejudice the
rights of Engracia’s heirs who are named as owners of the subject real estate.
While
we do not contradict petitioner as to the nature, purpose, and effects of a
notice of lis pendens as held in the jurisprudence cited in her petition and
memorandum, we do not agree that these cases are squarely applicable in this
case to favor her cause.
It
should be remembered that the Office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite, as
affirmed by both the LRA and the CA, denied the annotation of the notice of lis
pendens not only on the ground that Engracia’s heirs, the persons named in TCT
No. T-784707, were not impleaded in the case between petitioner and respondent
pending appeal before the CA. It also
relied on other attendant circumstances, namely: (1) the cancelled title of
respondent did not bear an inscription on the pendency of Civil Case No. 878-94
then before the RTC, Branch 21, Cavite involving the said property; (2) the
title of Engracia’s heirs over the property did not originate nor was it
transferred from the title of respondent; (3) respondent, by virtue of her
Waiver and Quitclaim, renounced all her claims over the property by stating
that her title, including those of her supposed predecessors-in-interest, was
fictitious and simulated; and (4) TCT No. T-784707 in the name of Engracia’s
heirs was derived by succession from TCT No. T-769357 in the name of Engracia
Isip, which, in turn, was derived from a conveyance in her favor by the
Republic of the Philippines under OCT No. 1002.
It
is for these other reasons that our ruling in Voluntad cannot apply to the present controversy. In Voluntad,
the annotation of the notice of lis pendens was allowed on the TCT of Carmen
and Maria Voluntad even if they were not parties to the pending litigation
because they were the predecessors-in-interest of the Voluntads who applied for
the annotation (applicant Voluntads) and that the real property subject thereof
was still in the names of Carmen and Maria despite already having passed on to
their heirs (applicant Voluntads).
In
contrast, herein petitioner’s claim to the property is not derived from the
titles of Engracia and her heirs. While
the property described in TCT No. T-784707 in the name of Engracia’s heirs
refers to the same property described in TCT No. 58459 in the name of Marciano
and Virginia Cuevas from whom petitioner claimed to have derived her title, it
is apparent that the title of Engracia’s heirs over the property is totally
alien to the controversy between petitioner and respondent. Had petitioner been truly prudent as she now
poses to be, she should have caused the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens
on TCT No. 58459 in the name of respondent way back when she filed the petition
for reconveyance (Civil Case No. 878-94), as this would have resulted in the
carrying over of the notice onto TCT Nos. T-769357 (Engracia Isip) and T-784707
(Engracia’s heirs) after respondent waived her claim over the property in
Isips’ favor.
Indeed,
petitioner’s belated act of applying for a notice of lis pendens, if allowed by
the Office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite, would infringe on the right to
due process of Engracia’s heirs, who were never parties to the reconveyance
suit between petitioner and respondent now pending appeal before the CA.[31] While the notice of lis pendens would not
create a right or lien over the property, it will definitely be an
inconvenience or a burden, however slight, on the title of Engracia’s heirs,
especially when dealing with the same property in the concept of owners. Justice and fair play require that Engracia’s
heirs be rightfully informed of petitioner’s claim over the same property by
impleading them in the pending suit before the application for annotation of
lis pendens be favorably acted upon.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Eliezer R. De Los Santos, with Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and
Rodrigo V. Cosico, concurring; rollo,
pp. 35-40.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Supra note 1.
[25] Supra note 2.
[26] Sec. 14. Notice of Lis Pendens. – In an action affecting the title or the right of possession of real property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may record in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the action. Said notice shall contain the names of the parties and the object of the action or defense, and a description of the property in that province affected thereby. Only from the time of filing of such notice for record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be deemed to have constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against the parties designated by their real names.
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may
be cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice
is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary
to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded.
[27] Sec.
76. Notice of lis pendens. – No
action to recover possession of real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to
remove clouds upon the title thereof, or for partition, or other proceedings of
any kind in court directly affecting the title to land or the use or occupation
thereof or the buildings thereon, and no judgment, and no proceeding to vacate
or reverse any judgment, shall have any effect upon registered land as against
persons other than the parties thereto, unless a memorandum or notice stating
the institution of such action or proceeding and the court wherein the same is
pending, as well as the date of the institution thereof, together with a
reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an adequate
description of the land affected and the registered owner thereof, shall have
been filed and registered.
[28] 372 Phil. 82 (1999).
[29] Viewmaster
Construction Corporation v. Maulit, 383 Phil. 729, 742 (2000).
[31] Felix
Gochan & Sons Realty Corporation v. Cañada, G.R. No. L-49686,