FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the registration of a notice of lis pendens concerning a property known as the Las Piñas property. The property is registered in the name of Peltan Development Inc., now State Properties Corporation, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (S-17992) 12473-A in Barrio Tindig na Manga, Las Piñas, Rizal. The Chiong/Roxas family collectively owns and controls several corporations, including State Investment Trust, Inc., State Land Investment Corporation, Philippine Development and Industrial Corporation, and Stronghold Realty Development. In 1995, the family decided to give control and ownership of these corporations to one member through a bidding process. Defendant Allen Roxas, a stockholder of State Investment Trust, Inc., applied for a loan with First Metro Investment, Inc. (First Metro) to participate in the bidding and petitioner Viewmaster acted as the loan guarantor. It was agreed that if Roxas won the bidding, he would sell 50% of the acquired shares to petitioner at the successful bid price plus an additional 10% per share. Roxas eventually gained control and ownership of State Investment Trust, Inc., but failed to implement the joint venture project with petitioner. Petitioner filed a complaint against the corporations and Roxas for specific performance, enforcement of implied trust, and damages. Petitioner also filed a notice of lis pendens on the property. The Register of Deeds denied the request for annotation, stating that the complaint did not adequately describe the subject property and the action only had an incidental effect on the property. Petitioner appealed to the Land Registration Authority, which ruled that the notice of lis pendens was not registrable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, noting the insufficient description of the property in petitioner's application and that the action only had an incidental effect on the property.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the absence of the property's technical description in the notice of lis pendens and the complaint is a ground for rejecting its application.

2. Whether the civil case subject of the notice of lis pendens directly involved the land in question.

3. Whether the Complaint warrants the registration of a notice of lis pendens.

4. Whether the prayer for the co-development of the land is merely incidental to the sale of shares of defendant company.

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in its Complaint pending in the RTC.

6. Whether the requirement that an affirmative relief be claimed has been met.

RULING:

1. The absence of the property's technical description in the notice of lis pendens and the complaint is not a ground for rejecting its application. The notice of lis pendens, taken as a whole, adequately describes the subject property and leaves no doubt as to its identity. The attached Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (S-17992) 12473-A provides the technical description of the property. There was substantial compliance with the requirement of having a technical description to distinguish and readily identify the property.

2. The civil case subject of the notice of lis pendens directly involved the land in question. A notice of lis pendens may involve actions that deal not only with the title or possession of a property, but even with the use or occupation thereof. The relief sought in the civil case was the enforcement of a prior agreement between the petitioner and Defendant Allen Roxas to co-develop the latter's property. The lis pendens is proper in this case as it directly affects the use or occupation of the land.

3. The prayer for the sale of shares in the defendant company does not directly involve title to the property, therefore it is not a proper subject of a notice of lis pendens. The various amounts of damages prayed for also do not justify the annotation of a notice. However, the prayer for the co-development of the land is a separate undertaking that did not arise from the acquisition of shares, making it a proper subject of a notice of lis pendens.

4. The co-development of the land is not merely incidental or auxiliary to the sale of shares, but a distinct consideration for Viewmaster's guaranty. Petitioner has a direct interest in the property and the action involves the enforcement of petitioner's right to co-develop and use the property.

5. The Court granted the petition and reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Las Piñas Register of Deeds was directed to cause the annotation of lis pendens in TCT No. (S-17992) 12473-A. No costs.

PRINCIPLES:

• The requirement for a technical description in the notice of lis pendens is to ensure that the property can be distinguished and readily identified. Substantial compliance with this requirement is sufficient.

• A notice of lis pendens, which means "pending suit," may involve actions that deal with not only the title or possession of a property, but also with the use or occupation thereof. It applies to cases directly affecting the title to the land or its use or occupation, among others.

• The purpose of lis pendens is to protect the rights of the party causing the registration and to advise third parties dealing with the subject property that they do so at their own risk.

• Third parties who acquire property subject to a notice of lis pendens cannot acquire better rights than their predecessors-in-interest.

• Without a notice of lis pendens, a third party who relies only on the Certificate of Title and acquires the property will be deemed a purchaser in good faith and the rights of the petitioner cannot be enforced against them.

• Lis pendens is necessary to prevent the res of the civil case from leaving the control of the court and rendering the judgment ineffectual.

• The requirement for a lis pendens is that an affirmative relief be claimed, not the proof of right or interest in the property.

• A notation of lis pendens protects the applicant's rights and does not affect the merits of the case or create a right or lien.