View full case

HEIRS OF EUGENIO LOPEZ v. ALFREDO R. ENRIQUEZ

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review filed by the petitioner to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the resolution of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) which ruled that a notice of lis pendens based on a motion is not registrable.

The land in question was subject to an application for registration of title filed by Alfonso Sandoval and Roman Ozaeta, Jr. On May 31, 1966, the land registration court granted the application and the decision became final and executory. Decree Nos. N-217643 and N-217644 were subsequently issued in the names of Sandoval, his wife Rosa Ruiz, Ozaeta, and his wife Ma. Salome Lao on October 20, 1977.

The heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr., who are the petitioners in this case, filed a motion in the land registration case on July 16, 1997. The motion alleged that Sandoval and Ozaeta sold the lots to Eugenio Lopez, Sr. on September 23, 1970. The petitioners requested that the court consider the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. and issue the decree of registration in their names as his successors-in-interest. Hearings were conducted on the motion.

On August 18, 1998, the Register of Deeds issued titles in favor of Sandoval, Ozaeta, and their spouses. The petitioners filed another motion on November 25, 1998, seeking to declare the titles and decrees void. They pointed out inconsistencies in the dates and requested the LRA to recall the decrees. However, the LRA Administrator denied the request and explained the inconsistencies in a letter dated December 1, 1998.

The facts of the case involve the petitioner's application to annotate a notice of lis pendens on the titles issued in the name of Alfonso Sandoval and his spouse. The application was denied by the Register of Deeds due to lack of the original petition or complaint. The petitioners appealed the denial to the LRA, arguing that a notice of lis pendens should be registrable based on their motion to declare the titles void. However, the LRA ruled that a notice of lis pendens based on a motion is not registrable and that only a party to the case has the legal personality to file it. The petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals, but their petition was dismissed. The petitioners now raise the issues of whether their motion to declare void the titles is a proper basis for filing the notice of lis pendens and whether they can file the motion despite the existence of the order of general default.

In another case, the petitioner filed a notice of lis pendens to protect his rights and provide constructive notice to potential buyers or encumbrancers of a property. However, the respondents moved for the cancellation of the notice, arguing that it was unnecessary to protect the petitioner's rights. The trial court granted the respondents' motion and ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. The petitioner now seeks the reversal of the Court of Appeals' ruling.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Register of Deeds erred in denying the registration of the notice of lis pendens due to the absence of the original petition or complaint.

  2. Whether the notice of lis pendens filed by the petitioners complies with the requirements under Section 76 of PD 1529.

  3. Whether petitioners have complied with the requisites for the issuance of a notice of lis pendens.

  4. Whether petitioners have standing in the land registration proceedings for purposes of filing an application of a notice of lis pendens.

  5. Whether petitioners need to file a motion to lift the order of general default.

  6. Whether or not the petitioners complied with the requirements for a notice of lis pendens.

  7. Whether or not the petition for land registration can proceed despite the failure to comply with the requirements.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the Register of Deeds erred in denying the registration of the notice of lis pendens due to the absence of the original petition or complaint. The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is to advise third parties dealing with the property at their own risk that a suit is pending. The absence of the original petition or complaint should not be a ground for denial, as it is not required by law to be attached to the notice.

  2. Yes, the notice of lis pendens filed by the petitioners complies with the requirements under Section 76 of PD 1529. It contains a statement of the filing of a motion to declare the original certificates of title null and void, the name of the court where the motion is pending, the date of filing of the motion, the numbers of the original certificates of title, and an adequate description of the land affected and its registered owner.

  3. The Register of Deeds correctly denied the application for a notice of lis pendens because petitioners are mere movants and not original parties in the case. Petitioners failed to present the requisite pleading to the Register of Deeds as required by Section 76 of PD 1529.

  4. The court held that the motion filed by petitioners is insufficient to give them standing in the land registration proceedings for purposes of filing an application of a notice of lis pendens. However, the court disagreed with the observation that petitioners need to file a motion to lift the order of general default. A motion to lift the order of general default should be filed before entry of final judgment.

  5. The court ruled that petitioners failed to timely file a motion to lift the order of general default. As a result, they are deemed movants whose personality as far as the case is concerned is not yet admitted by the court. Until the order of general default is lifted, petitioners cannot be considered as parties to the action.

  6. The petitioners failed to comply with the requirements for a notice of lis pendens.

  7. The petition for land registration cannot proceed due to the failure to comply with the requirements for a notice of lis pendens.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The doctrine of lis pendens refers to the jurisdiction, power, or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment.

  • The purposes of lis pendens are to protect the rights of the party causing the registration and to advise third persons that they deal with the property at their own risk.

  • The filing of a notice of lis pendens keeps the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court and binds a purchaser of the land subject to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently.

  • The filing of a notice of lis pendens does not create a right or lien that previously did not exist.

  • A notice of lis pendens may involve actions that deal not only with title or possession of a property, but also with the use or occupation thereof.

  • The doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to cases involving preliminary attachments, probate of wills, levies on execution, administration of estate of deceased persons, and recovery of a money judgment.

  • A notice of lis pendens should contain a statement of the institution of the action, the court where it is pending, the date of its institution, a reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an adequate description of the land affected and its registered owner. The absence of the original petition or complaint is not a ground for denial.

  • An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another's name. The remedy of reconveyance is based on Section 55 of Act No. 496. It can be filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value.

  • A notice of lis pendens may be annotated on the certificate of title immediately upon the institution of the action in court. The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third person for value and preserve the claim of the real owner.

  • The order of default in the land registration proceedings includes all persons made parties defendant by the description in the notice "To All Whom It May Concern." As such, these persons shall be concluded by the default order unless a motion to lift the default order is filed and granted.

  • In cases of conveyance of land subject to a registration proceeding, the interested party may present the instrument of conveyance to the court together with a motion to have it considered in relation to the application, and prior notice must be given to the parties to the case. (Mendoza v. Court of Appeals)

  • A party declared in default loses their standing in court and cannot appear, adduce evidence, be heard, or be entitled to notice. They also cannot appeal from the judgment unless they file a motion to set aside the order of default under the grounds provided in the rules of procedure. (Lim Toco v. Go Fay)

  • In land registration cases, an order of general default is deemed to have been issued based on the presumption of regularity in judicial proceedings. A motion to lift the order of general default is required for intervenors-oppositors to the land registration proceedings but not for mere interested parties. (Serrano v. Palacio)

  • The objective of the Rules of Court is to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

  • The strict requirements for a notice of lis pendens should be complied with to ensure that the rights and interests of all affected parties are adequately protected.