FACTS:

In 1964, Emilio Gregorio filed an application for registration of title over four lots in Las Piñas, Rizal. The Court of First Instance (CFI) issued an order declaring the reserved oppositions of Jose T. Velasquez and Pablo Velasquez as abandoned. The CFI declared Gregorio as the absolute owner of the lots in 1966. However, in July 1966, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) informed the CFI that certain portions of Velasquez's lots were covered by Gregorio's lots. Based on the LRA report, the CFI declared Gregorio's award null and void and issued new decrees and certificates of title in favor of Velasquez. Gregorio appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and won. The CA's decision became final and executory in 1972. The LRA then issued new decrees and certificates of title in favor of Gregorio.

In a separate civil case, the deed of sale involving the lots awarded to Gregorio was annulled by the CA. The court declared the children of the deceased Emilio Gregorio as his compulsory heirs, and a new certificate of title was issued in favor of his heirs.

Another issue arose regarding the cancellation of a certificate of title in favor of Gregorio and the issuance of a new one in favor of the heirs. The LRA reported that compliance with a previous decision from the CA would result in duplication of titles. Encumbrances were also discovered on the lots, including deeds of sale executed by the heirs in favor of other parties. The Register of Deeds cancelled the titles issued in the name of J.T. Velasquez and assigned them to J.V. Development Corporation. The heirs of Gregorio filed a motion for execution, and the RTC declared the previous decrees in favor of Velasquez null and void.

TCTs were subsequently issued to the heirs, but the property was later subdivided. The case also involved a claim by Luis Fajardo, who financed the litigation in exchange for part of the property. Fajardo and Trinidad filed a civil case after a favorable ruling was rendered in Gregorio's appeal.

Another case was filed for the quieting of title, where petitioner Top Management Programs Corporation claimed ownership of a lot covered by TCT No. T-8129, which originated from a void title. The original certificate of title was declared null and void by the Supreme Court, and the decision of the CFI which adjudicated the lots to Velasquez was nullified by the CA. The trial court granted the demurrer to evidence filed by the private respondent and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-8129 in the name of the petitioner. Petitioner appealed to the CA.

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner's claim of title to Lot 1-A should be served as a third-party claim on the Deputy Sheriff who executed the Deed of Conveyance and caused its registration, or should petitioner vindicate the claim to the property through a separate independent action.

2. Whether TCT No. T-8129 is defective and can be declared null and void.

3. Whether the prohibition mentioned in the case of Director of Lands v. Reyes applies to the case at bar.

4. Whether TCT No. T-107729 and its derivative titles are valid.

5. Whether the entries in TCT No. 107729 were mere clerical errors and if said certificate was validly issued to implement the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R.

6. Whether the RTC of Pasig exceeded its authority in ordering the issuance of new certificates of title in favor of the heirs of Gregorio despite the existence of TCT No. S-91911 already issued to them.

7. Whether OCT No. 9587 is null and void because it was issued before the decision in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R became final.

8. Whether execution pending appeal is applicable in a land registration proceeding.

9. Whether a Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is valid.

10. Whether the notice of lis pendens was validly annotated on the certificate of title.

11. Whether the petitioner is a purchaser in good faith.

RULING:

1. The court refrains from discussing the first issue raised by the petitioner as its resolution is inconsequential and would not alter the outcome of the case.

2. The Court affirms the dismissal of petitioner's complaint and the validity of TCT No. T-8129. The Court holds that petitioner's title, derived from a void title (OCT No. 5678), is defective and can be declared null and void.

3. The prohibition mentioned in the case of Director of Lands v. Reyes does not apply to the case at bar. Thus, it cannot serve as a basis to nullify OCT No. 9587, the mother title of TCT No. T-27380 in the name of the private respondent.

4. TCT No. T-107729 and its derivative titles are void and inexistent. The lower courts upheld the title of the private respondent, which can be traced to the original certificate in the name of Emilio Gregorio (OCT No. 9578).

5. The court held that even assuming the subject entries in TCT No. 107729 were mere clerical errors and said certificate was issued to implement the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R, the execution of the judgment was still tainted with infirmity. The RTC of Pasig exceeded its authority in ordering the issuance of new certificates of title in favor of the heirs of Gregorio despite the existence of TCT No. S-91911 already issued to them. The issuance of another certificate of title covering the same land would result in duplication of titles or "double titling," which is void.

6. The court also ruled that the issuance of new certificates of title in favor of the heirs of Gregorio was improper because there was already a previous decree and original certificate issued to the common predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and private respondent. The land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in a previous land registration case.

7. It was also held that OCT No. 9587 is null and void because it was issued before the decision in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R became final. According to the court, a land registration court should not issue another decree covering the same land when there is already a previous decree in favor of another party.

8. Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding. It is deemed void and has dangerous consequences as innocent purchasers may rely on a judgment that may be reversed on appeal.

9. A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity. The Land Registration Act requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory.

10. The notice of lis pendens was validly annotated on the certificate of title. The purpose of the annotation is to serve as a warning to prospective purchasers or encumbrancers that the property is subject to a pending litigation and that any interest they acquire would be subject to the final outcome of the case. The legal requirement for the annotation of a notice of lis pendens was complied with by the respondent.

11. The petitioner is not a purchaser in good faith. The petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge of the notice of lis pendens is irrelevant. It is settled that the doctrine of lis pendens applies regardless of whether the purchaser had actual knowledge of the pending litigation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot invoke the rights of a purchaser in good faith and cannot acquire better rights than the previous owner.

PRINCIPLES:

• A claim of title to property should be served as a third-party claim on the Deputy Sheriff who executed the deed of conveyance and caused its registration, or through a separate independent action.

• A title derived from a void title can be declared null and void.

• A buyer in good faith who had no knowledge of any defect in the title of the predecessor-in-interest may still be subject to the defects in the title.

• Quieting of title is a common law remedy for removing any cloud, doubt, or uncertainty affecting the title to real property. The plaintiffs must show not only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over the subject real property, but that they have a valid title to it.

• When two certificates of title purport to include the same land, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title were derived. If there is only one common original certificate, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration.

• Land registration court does not have jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in a previous land registration case.

• The issuance of another certificate of title covering the same land would result in duplication of titles or "double titling," which is void.

• A land registration court should not issue another decree covering the same land when there is already a previous decree in favor of another party.

• Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding.

• A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is null and void.

• Lis pendens serves as a notice to the whole world that a particular property is in litigation and any subsequent transactions involving the property are subject to the outcome of the litigation.

• A notice of lis pendens is an announcement that keeps the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of final judgment and binds subsequent purchasers of the property to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate.

• The entry of a notice of lis pendens in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds is sufficient to constitute registration and serves as notice to all persons of the claim.

• The notice of lis pendens is not part of the doctrine of notice; instead, it is based on public policy, preventing litigating parties from transferring rights to the property to prejudice the other party during the litigation.

• The doctrine of lis pendens applies regardless of whether the purchaser had actual knowledge of the pending litigation.

• A purchaser cannot invoke the rights of a purchaser in good faith if there is a valid notice of lis pendens on the property.