ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136283. November 27, 2000]

VIEWMASTER CONST. CORP. vs. HON. REYNALDO Y. MAULIT, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your Information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 27 2000.

G.R. No. 136283 (Viewmaster Construction Corporation, vs. Hon. Reynaldo Y. Maulit, in his Official Capacity as Administrator of the Land Registration Authority; and Edgardo Castro, acting Register of Deeds of Las Piñas, Metro Manila.)

In our Decision dated February 29, 2000, the Court directed the Las Piñas Register of Deeds to cause the annotation of lis pendens in TCT No. (S-17992) 12473-A, in view of the pendency of Civil Case No. 65277 filed by herein petitioner against State Investment Trust, Inc., Northeast Land Development, Inc., State Properties Corporation (formerly Peltan Development, Inc.) and Allen Roxas in his capacity as officer of the three corporations. (Roxas and the corporations are hereafter referred to as "Roxas et al.")

On March 2, 2000, Roxas et al. filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Temporary Suspension of Proceedings. Stating that they only discovered recently and "by happenstance" the existence of the present case, they prayed that the proceedings herein be temporarily suspended so that they could intervene and that petitioner be directed to furnish them copies of the petition and its annexes.

In a Resolution dated March 13, 2000, the Court directed petitioner to give copies of the Petition to Roxas et al., who were allowed to file the proper pleading in intervention within a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt of the requested documents. Petitioner complied.

Subsequently, Roxas et al. filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention. In the Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention, they argue that (1) they were denied due process because they were not impleaded in the present case; (2) Civil Case No. 65277 did not involve title to or possession of the subject property; (3) the Notice of lis pendens inadequately and erroneously described the subject property; (4) the present case has become moot because the Court of Appeals (CA), in its November 28, 1997 Decision in CA GR SP No. 44000, had already dismissed Civil Case No. 65277.

In a Resolution dated June 26, 2000, the Court directed petitioner and respondents to comment on the two Motions.

In its Comment/Opposition, petitioner contends, inter alia, that (1) intervention is no longer proper at this stage because such recourse is allowed only at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court; (2) Roxas et al. are not indispensable parties in this case; (3) the CA Decision, not being a final judgment, does not render the present case moot.

In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that Roxas et al. are not indispensable parties. Since a notice of lis pendens is an involuntary dealing on a certificate of title, the OSG argues that the registered owner's position o the matter is irrelevant. It further posits that the interests of Roxas et al. were amply protected because it "tenaciously defended" the position of herein respondents in denying the registration of the Notice of lis pendens.

Meanwhile, in a Supplemental to Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention, Roxas et al. aver that the Second Division of this Court, in a Decision dated July 13, 2000 in GR No. 133576, affirmed the aforesaid ruling of the appellate court. In a subsequent Manifestation received by the Court on October 25, 2000, they further state that the Second Division, in a Resolution dated September 4, 2000, denied with finality herein Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration thereof.

Acting on the arguments raised by the parties, we hold that the Court at the time correctly ordered the registration of the Notice of lis pendens. Contrary to the claim of Roxas et al., Civil Case No. 65277 was a proper subject of such Notice because it involved the enforcement of petitioner's right to co-develop and use the property. We also reiterate that the Notice, taken as a whole, leaves no doubt as to the identity of the subject property. Equally unmeritorious is the claim that the case had allegedly become moot. When the Court promulgated its Decision on February 29, 2000, the CA ruling dismissing Civil Case No. 65277 was still pending review by the Second Division of this Court. Hence, there was still a pending suit at the time.

Furthermore, we reject the contention of Roxas et al. that they were denied due process. As correctly argued by the OSG, they were not indispensable parties in this case and that, in any event, they defended the respondents below, whose interest was identical to theirs. Even assuming that they were, such lapse was cured when the Court allowed them to intervene, admitted their Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention and considered their arguments. Indeed, it is their contention that has become moot because the Court heard their extensive submissions even at this late stage.

Clearly, the Court did not err when it granted the Petition and reversed the CA. We reiterated that the registration of the Notice of lis pendens was warranted by the facts prevailing at the time.

In view of a supervening event, however, our directive to the Las Piñas Register of Deeds to cause the annotation of such Notice should be deleted. After the promulgation of our ponencia, the Second Division affirmed the CA ruling dismissing Civil Case No. 65277, and subsequently denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration thereof. Hence, Civil Case No. 65277 is no longer pending. Without a pending litigation, there can no longer be any notice of lis pendens to be registered.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration in Intervention. In light of the aforesaid supervening event, however, the directive of the Las Piñas Register of Deeds to cause the annotation of the Notice of lis pendens has become FUNCTUS OFICIO, may no longer be enforced and is thus DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE