Biglangawa v. Constantino
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Pastor B. Constantino filed an amended complaint against petitioners Lucina Biglangawa and Lucia Espiritu, alleging breach of an agency agreement. Constantino claimed he was appointed exclusive agent to develop and sell subdivision lots owned by the petitioners, with a commission of 20% on gross sales and a 10% collection fee. He asserted that the petitioners terminated the agency in bad faith, failed to pay his full commissions and fees, and underpaid him on subsequent collections, resulting in a claimed balance of P39,534.62, plus damages and attorney's fees. Constantino sought payment of underpayments, the full balance of his commissions and fees, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: Following the filing of Constantino's amended complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 2138), he subsequently filed a notice of lis pendens with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on April 5, 1955, concerning the property subject to the agency agreement. The petitioners, Biglangawa and Espiritu, refused to surrender their owner's copy of the title for annotation. However, the Register of Deeds annotated the lis pendens on the petitioners' title and on a title issued to a third-party buyer. In response, the petitioners filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan on June 11, 1955, seeking the cancellation of the lis pendens. The court granted the petition on July 19, 1955, ordering the cancellation of the annotation, finding that Constantino's action was purely a claim for money judgment and did not affect the title or possession of the real property. After the court denied Constantino's motion for reconsideration, he filed the present appeal. 3. The Petition: The respondent-appellant, Pastor B. Constantino, contends that the lower court erred in ruling that his action was merely a money claim. He argues that his agreement with the petitioners, which entitled him to a commission and collection fee, effectively made him a partner with a 1/5 participation in the property, thus rendering his suit one for the settlement of partnership interests or partition. The petitioners-appellees maintain that the amended complaint clearly establishes an agency relationship, not a partnership, and that the prayer for relief specifically seeks monetary recovery, not a declaration of partnership or partition. They assert that the action does not affect the title or possession of the real property, making the annotation of lis pendens improper.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's action for unpaid commissions and fees, arising from an agency agreement concerning the development and sale of subdivision lots, is an action that affects the title to or possession of real property, thereby justifying the annotation of a notice of lis pendens. Whether the respondent's role as an agent, who advanced expenses and was entitled to commissions, converted him into a partner with a proprietary interest in the property itself.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, holding that the respondent's action was a personal claim for a money judgment and not an action affecting the title to or possession of real property. Consequently, the annotation of the notice of lis pendens was improper and ordered to be cancelled. The Court found no error in the lower court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the notice of lis pendens: The Court reiterated the established rule that a notice of lis pendens is a remedy available only in actions that directly affect the title to or the right of possession of real property. The amended complaint filed by the respondent, Pastor B. Constantino, was examined and found to be a claim for money judgment based on unpaid commissions and fees arising from an agency agreement. The allegations clearly characterized the respondent as an agent entitled to compensation, not as a partner or co-owner with a proprietary interest in the property. The prayer for relief sought the recovery of specific sums of money, namely underpayments, balance of commissions, and damages, which are indicative of a personal action. Therefore, the action did not involve the title or possession of the real property, making the annotation of lis pendens unwarranted. On the nature of the respondent's claim: The Court rejected the respondent-appellant's contention that his agreement with the petitioners converted him into a partner with a share in the property. The amended complaint explicitly referred to the respondent as an "exclusive agent" and his entitlement as "compensation" in the form of "commission" and "fee," rather than a share in the property. While the respondent advanced expenses, this was considered part of his role as an agent and did not, by itself, establish a partnership. The subsequent liquidation and acknowledgment of a balance as "indebtedness" further supported the conclusion that the relationship was one of agency and debtor-creditor, not partnership. The prayer for relief, seeking recovery of specific monetary amounts, reinforced the characterization of the action as a personal claim for money, not a suit for partition or settlement of partnership interests.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order to cancel the notice of lis pendens, holding that the respondent's amended complaint did not involve an action affecting the title or right of possession of real property. The Court clarified that the respondent's claim was essentially for unpaid commissions and fees arising from an agency agreement, which constitutes a personal action for a money judgment, and not an action that directly concerns the ownership or possession of the property itself. Therefore, the annotation of lis pendens was improper.