Limjap v. Vera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 17, 1893, Doña Praxedes de los Santos sold land to Doña Rita Juan Carballo, reserving the right to repurchase within eight years, expiring April 17, 1901. Prior to expiration, Doña Tomasa Vera, claiming to be an heir, offered to repurchase. Doña Rita refused. Doña Tomasa deposited the repurchase money in court. On April 19, 1901, Doña Rita caused a 'nota de consolidacion' (consolidation note) to be entered in the registry of property, indicating no repurchase was made. On July 23, 1901, Doña Rita sold the property to Telesforo Ablaza, who recorded his deed on July 25, 1901. Procedural History: Ablaza filed an action (No. 321) against Doña Tomasa for recovery of possession and ownership. On July 2, 1902, judgment was rendered declaring Ablaza the owner, based on the 'nota de consolidacion' and Ablaza's timely recording, and ordering Doña Tomasa to vacate. No appeal was taken. Doña Tomasa then filed another action (No. 1016) against Doña Rita and Ablaza. This case was dismissed as to Ablaza on October 17, 1902, due to the prior final judgment in case No. 321. Subsequent conflicting judgments were entered and vacated in case No. 1016, with the vacating order affirmed by the Supreme Court on November 2, 1905 (Moguer vs. Carballo, 5 Phil. Rep., 195). Meanwhile, on July 23, 1902, a notice of lis pendens for action No. 1016 was filed, and annotated on July 26, 1902. On February 20, 1906, a motion by Doña Tomasa to vacate the October 17, 1902 order was denied. Action No. 1016 proceeded against Doña Rita, and on December 27, 1906, the court declared the sale between Rita Juan Carballo and Ablaza null and void as between Doña Tomasa and Doña Rita, granting Doña Tomasa possession against Doña Rita. The Petition: On November 15, 1904, Ablaza sold the land to the plaintiff, Mariano Limjap, who recorded his deed on February 20, 1906. On August 5, 1907, Limjap commenced the present action, asking to be declared the owner.
Issue(s)
Whether the question of ownership between Ablaza and Doña Tomasa, as decided in prior cases, is still open for litigation. Whether the notices of lis pendens filed by Doña Tomasa affect the ownership rights of the plaintiff, Mariano Limjap, a subsequent purchaser from Ablaza. Whether the good faith of the plaintiff, Mariano Limjap, is relevant to the determination of ownership.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed, with costs against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the question of ownership is still open for litigation: The Supreme Court held that the question of ownership between Ablaza and Doña Tomasa had been decided three times in favor of Ablaza before the present action commenced. Specifically, it was definitively decided in case No. 321, from which no appeal was taken. This same issue was again decided in the judgment of October 17, 1902, which was never reversed, and further affirmed by the order of February 20, 1906, from which no appeal was taken. Therefore, so far as Ablaza and his grantee, the plaintiff herein, are concerned, the question of whether Doña Tomasa should have been allowed to repurchase the property in 1901 is not open to discussion. The principle of res judicata applies, preventing the relitigation of issues already finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. On the effect of the notices of lis pendens: The Court stated that the notices of lis pendens filed by Doña Tomasa, whether under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Mortgage Law, served only to secure the rights of the plaintiff in the suit, if she finally prevailed. As Doña Tomasa did not prevail and judgments were rendered against her in the prior cases concerning ownership, these notices could produce no effect. The notices of lis pendens are merely cautionary, informing third parties of the pendency of an action concerning the title to the property, but they do not create or establish any right. Their efficacy is contingent upon the final outcome of the litigation. On the relevance of the plaintiff's good faith: The Court found that considerable space in the appellant's brief was devoted to the question of the good faith of the plaintiff Limjap, claiming he furnished Ablaza's money for the purchase in 1901. However, the Court explicitly stated that this fact was of no importance whatever in the case. The plaintiff's claim to ownership is based on his purchase from Ablaza, whose ownership had been definitively established in prior judgments. The good faith of the plaintiff, while generally important in property transactions, does not alter the established legal ownership derived from Ablaza, which was settled by final judgments prior to the plaintiff's acquisition.
Main Doctrine
The effect of a notice of lis pendens is to secure the rights of the plaintiff in the suit if they finally prevail; if they do not prevail, the notice produces no effect. A prior final judgment on ownership, from which no appeal was taken, is conclusive and cannot be reopened by subsequent actions, especially when a subsequent purchaser recorded their deed in good faith.