Baranda v. Gustilo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns Lot No. 4517 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta. Barbara, Iloilo, initially covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 6406 in the name of Romana Hitalia. This title was subsequently cancelled and replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 106098, issued in the names of Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia. Opposing parties, Gregorio Perez, Maria P. Gotera, and Susana Silao, claimed ownership under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 25772 for the same lot. The court found TCT No. 25772 to be fraudulently acquired and ordered the execution of a writ of possession and demolition. 2. Procedural History: The conflict over Lot No. 4517 has led to multiple legal actions. Initially, a petition for reconstitution of title resulted in the issuance of TCT No. 106098 to Baranda and Hitalia. When a writ of possession was challenged, the Court of Appeals denied a petition for certiorari and prohibition, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 62042. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 64432 ordered the immediate implementation of writs of possession and demolition. Despite these rulings, the Acting Register of Deeds of Iloilo annotated a notice of lis pendens on the new certificates of title issued to Baranda and Hitalia, citing a separate pending case (Civil Case No. 15871) before the Court of Appeals. The Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23, initially ordered the cancellation of this lis pendens but later set aside its order, prompting the current petition. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus filed by Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia. They seek to compel the respondent judge to reinstate his February 12, 1987 order, which directed the Acting Register of Deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated on their new certificates of title. The petitioners argue that the pendency of Civil Case No. 15871 should not prevent the cancellation of the lis pendens, as the underlying dispute has already been resolved in their favor by final Supreme Court decisions in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432. They contend that the private respondents are using the lis pendens as a dilatory tactic to obstruct the execution of these final judgments.
Issue(s)
Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 15871 before the Court of Appeals prevents the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens annotated on the petitioners' certificates of title. Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in setting aside his order directing the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. What is the nature of the duty of the Register of Deeds concerning the annotation and cancellation of a notice of lis pendens.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The February 12, 1987 order of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23, is REINSTATED. All subsequent orders issued by the trial court which annulled the February 12, 1987 order are SET ASIDE. Costs against the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 15871 prevents the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens: The Supreme Court ruled that the pendency of Civil Case No. 15871 did not prevent the cancellation of the lis pendens. The Court found that the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 were privies to G.R. No. 62042, which had already declared TCT No. 25772 (in the name of the Providos, including Maria Provido Gotera, who was a petitioner in G.R. No. 62042) null and void and TCT No. 106098 (in the name of petitioners Baranda and Hitalia) valid and subsisting. The decision in G.R. No. 62042 became final and executory long before Civil Case No. 15871 was filed. The Court emphasized that the purpose of a notice of lis pendens is to protect real rights and serve as a warning to prospective purchasers, but this protection is not warranted when the underlying claim has been definitively resolved against the party claiming the property. The Court cited cases allowing discretionary cancellation of lis pendens under peculiar circumstances, such as unnecessary delays caused by the plaintiff to the prejudice of the defendant. On the issue of whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge abused his discretion in sustaining the Acting Register of Deeds' position that the lis pendens could not be cancelled due to the pendency of Civil Case No. 15871. The Court noted that the judge had previously dismissed Civil Case No. 15871 and was aware of the final decisions in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432. The judge's reliance on Section 77 of P.D. 1529, which pertains to cancellation after final judgment, was deemed misplaced as it overlooked the first paragraph of Section 77, which allows cancellation before final judgment upon a proper showing that the notice is for molesting the adverse party or is unnecessary. The Court found that the private respondents were using Civil Case No. 15871 as a delaying tactic to frustrate the execution of final judgments. On the nature of the duty of the Register of Deeds: The Supreme Court reiterated that the duty of the Register of Deeds concerning the registration of instruments, including annotations and cancellations of encumbrances like lis pendens, is purely ministerial. Section 10 of P.D. 1529 mandates that the Register of Deeds must register instruments that comply with all requisites. If an instrument is not registrable, they must deny registration in writing, stating the grounds. In cases of doubt, the Register of Deeds should submit the question to the Commissioner of Land Registration (now Administrator of the Land Registration Authority) for guidance, as provided in Section 117 of P.D. 1529. The Court concluded that the Acting Register of Deeds had no legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of the order directing the cancellation of the lis pendens and should have sought clarification under Section 117 instead of unilaterally refusing cancellation based on a pending appeal that was clearly a dilatory maneuver.
Main Doctrine
The pendency of an appeal involving a notice of lis pendens does not automatically prevent a court from ordering its cancellation, especially when the underlying claim has been definitively resolved in prior Supreme Court decisions and the appeal appears to be a delaying tactic. The duty of the Register of Deeds in annotating or cancelling notices of lis pendens is ministerial, and they should not unilaterally refuse registration or cancellation based on a pending appeal if the underlying judgment has been resolved.