Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

101 Phil 171:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10064. April 23, 1957.]

In Re: Petition for Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens Annotated in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12226, Quezon City. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUEN MORALES, Oppositor-Appellee.

Jesus A. Avanceña, Ricardo V. Garcia and Lydia Florendo Veloso for Appellant.

Alberto R. de Joya for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. LIS PENDENS; NOTICE CANNOT AFFECT MORTGAGE ANNOTATED PRIOR TO IT; WHEN CAN A PURCHASER WHO HAS CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LITIGATION DEMAND CANCELLATION OF NOTICE. — The notice of lis pendens in question was annotated on the back of the certificate of title as a necessary incident of the civil action to recover the ownership of the property affected by it. The mortgage executed in favor of petitioner corporation was annotated on the same title prior to the annotation of the notice of lis pendens; but when petitioner bought the property as the highest bidder at the auction sale made as an aftermath of the foreclosure of the mortgage, the title already bore the notice of lis pendens. Held: While the notice of lis pendens cannot affect petitioner’s right as mortgagee because the same was annotated subsequent to the mortgage, yet the said notice affects its right as purchaser because notice of lis pendens simply means that a certain property is involved in a litigation and serves as a notice to the whole world that one who buys the same does so at his own risk. Here, petitioner has not only a constructive knowledge of said litigation but is a party to the case. Hence, it can not demand for the cancellation of the said notice until the case is finally terminated.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition filed by the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation in G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 7671 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens annotated on the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12226 under section 112 of Act No. 496.

Buen Morales opposed the petition on the main ground that, being an innocent third party, he is protected by the notice of lis pendens, and if the same will be cancelled, he will suffer considerable damages as a result of the cancellation. He also claims that the issues raised in his opposition which involve the ownership of the property affected by the notice of lis pendens cannot be resolved in the present incident and as such the court has no jurisdiction to act on the matter.

After hearing, the court sustained the opposition holding that while the notice of lis pendens annotated subsequently to the mortgage in favor of petitioner cannot affect its right as mortgagee, yet "said notice certainly affected its right as purchaser because notice of lis pendens simply means that a certain property is involved in a litigation and serves as notice to the whole world that one who buys the same does it at his own risks." Petitioner moved to reconsider the order, and when the motion was denied, it appealed the order to this Court.

The background of the incident is as follows: The property covered by the title on which the notice of lis pendens was annotated was originally bought by Consuelo A. Agoncillo from Gregorio Araneta, Inc. under an installment plan and before fully complying with it, Agoncillo sold the property, together with the improvements thereon, in favor of Buen Morales. The understanding between vendor and vendee was that the account would continue to be carried in the name of Agoncillo until it is fully paid, and when full payment is effected and the corresponding title issued, Agoncillo would execute the necessary transfer of title in favor of Morales. By reason of this agreement, the sale was not made of record in the office of Gregorio Araneta, Inc.

Without the knowledge of Morales, however, Agoncillo made an arrangement with the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation whereby she offered the property as a security for certain loan, said corporation agreeing to guarantee the payment of the balance of the purchase price to Gregorio Araneta, Inc. With this guarantee, Gregorio Araneta, Inc. caused to issue a certificate of title in the name of Agoncillo, on the back of which the mortgage in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation was annotated. This annotation having been made, the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation paid Gregorio Araneta, Inc. the balance of the account in full and turned over to Agoncillo the rest of the loan.

It was only after the loan had been obtained that Buen Morales discovered the anomalous transaction, and he immediately filed a complaint for estafa against Agoncillo in the office of the City Fiscal of Manila which culminated in her criminal prosecution. At the same time, Morales filed a civil action in the court of first instance against Agoncillo and the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation for the recovery of the property and caused to be annotated a notice of lis pendens on the back of the title which was in the name of Agoncillo. In the meantime, the mortgage in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation was foreclosed upon failure of Agoncillo to pay her obligation and at the public auction that ensued, said corporation bought the property as the highest bidder. The notice of lis pendens was carried forward and annotated on the new title issued in the name of the corporation. This is the notice which petitioner now seeks to cancel in the present proceeding.

There is no dispute that the notice of lis pendens was annotated on the back of the certificate of title issued in the name of Consuelo A. Agoncillo as a necessary incident of the civil action instituted by Buen Morales to recover the ownership of the property affected by it against Agoncillo and the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. There is likewise no dispute that the mortgage executed by Agoncillo in favor of said corporation was annotated on the same title prior to the annotation of the notice of lis pendens, but that when it bought the property as the highest bidder at the auction sale made as an aftermath of the foreclosure of the mortgage, the title already bore the notice of lis pendens. The question now to be determined is: Can said notice of lis pendens be cancelled at the instance of petitioner considering that the property affected by it is involved in a litigation wherein both Agoncillo and petitioner appear as party defendants?

Resolving this issue, the lower court made the following comment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"While it may be true that the notice of lis pendens was annotated subsequent to the mortgage in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation and cannot, therefore, affect its right as mortgagee, yet the said notice certainly affected its right as purchaser because notice of lis pendens simply means that a certain property is involved in a litigation and serves as a notice to the whole world that one who buys the same does so at his own risk."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the other hand, Section 24, Rule 7, which authorizes the annotation of a notice of lis pendens, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 24. Notice of lis pendens. — In an action affecting the title or the right of possession of real property, the plaintiff, at the time of filing the complaint, and the defendant, at the time of filing his answer, when affirmative relief is claimed in such answer, or at any time afterwards, may record in the office of the registrar of deeds of the province in which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the action, containing the names of the parties and the object of the action or defense, and a description of the property in that province affected thereby. From the time only of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser, or incumbrancer of the property affected thereby be deemed to have constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against parties designated by their real names." (Italics supplied)

In the light of the above-quoted provision of the rule relating to the annotation of a notice of lis pendens, we find correct the finding of the lower court that the notice of lis pendens as annotated should be maintained. It should be noted that said notice was caused to be annotated as an incident of the action taken by the oppositor against both Consuelo A. Agoncillo and the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation to recover precisely the ownership of the property affected by the mortgage and said action, when the petition for cancellation was filed, was still pending and undisposed of. In that case, not only the propriety of the mortgage was involved, but also the very title acquired by petitioner when it subsequently bought the property as the highest bidder, and in said litigation petitioner was a party defendant. It can therefore be said that petitioner not only has a constructive knowledge of said litigation but is a party to the case. The notice is therefore intended to be a warning to the whole world that one who buys the property does so at his own risk. This is necessary in order to save innocent third persons from any involvement in any future litigation concerning the property.

It is true that as a matter of general principle the notice of lis pendens cannot affect the right of petitioner as mortgagee because the mortgage was annotated prior to the annotation of said notice and to that extent its right is protected by law as against subsequent encumbrancers, but such cannot preclude the continuance of the notice of lis pendens for the simple reason that the property is actually in litigation. This is more so when the validity of the mortgage is involved. Until the civil case is finally terminated, it would not be right nor proper to cancel the notice of lis pendens.

The order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452