Romero v. Orden
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Conrado and Ma. Corona Romero entered into a letter-contract to sell with Saturnino S. Orden for a property located in Cubao, Quezon City, for P17 million. The agreement stipulated a P7 million down payment upon execution of the deed of absolute sale, with the balance of P10 million due by December 19, 1996. Additionally, Orden was to shoulder the expenses for evicting squatters from the property. When Orden failed to pay the down payment, Corona Romero informed him of her intent to rescind the contract. Procedural History: Saturnino S. Orden subsequently filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against the Romeros before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, alleging compliance with the squatter eviction obligation and seeking performance of the contract. Simultaneously, Orden annotated a notice of lis pendens on the property's Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). Subsequent buyers of the property intervened and moved for the cancellation of the lis pendens, which the RTC granted, finding that Orden's complaint did not sufficiently establish an actionable right over the property. Orden's motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to nullify the RTC's resolutions and to re-annotate the lis pendens. The CA granted the petition, ordering the re-annotation of the notice of lis pendens, and subsequently denied the Romeros' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The Spouses Romero filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. They argue that the CA gravely erred in ordering the re-annotation of the notice of lis pendens because the private respondent's complaint did not affect the title to or possession of the subject property. Petitioners contend that the contract was merely a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, and thus no title had passed to the respondent. They also assert that the CA overlooked the fact that a hearing was held and that the respondent failed to appear, despite being notified. The petitioners maintain that the CA's order constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the re-annotation of the notice of lis pendens. Whether a notice of lis pendens is proper in an action for specific performance based on a contract to sell, even if the complaint does not explicitly pray for ownership or possession.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the re-annotation of the notice of lis pendens.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the petitioners failed to show that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the re-annotation of the notice of lis pendens. On the issue of the propriety of lis pendens in a specific performance case: The Court reiterated that lis pendens refers to the court's jurisdiction over property involved in a suit until final judgment, serving as a warning that the property is in litigation. A notice of lis pendens is appropriate in any proceeding that directly affects the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof, or buildings thereon, and also in suits seeking to establish a right to, or an equitable estate or interest in, a specific real property, or to enforce a lien, a charge, or an encumbrance against it. The Court disagreed with the petitioners' claim that lis pendens was not proper because private respondent had no title and did not explicitly pray for ownership or possession, as the complaint for specific performance implicitly sought to compel the fulfillment of the promise to sell the property. The rules do not require a party seeking annotation to prove ownership or interest over the property; it is enough that an affirmative relief is claimed, as the notation of lis pendens neither affects the merits of the case nor creates a right or a lien, but merely protects the applicant's rights pending trial.
Main Doctrine
A notice of lis pendens may be annotated on a title even if the complaint does not explicitly pray for ownership or possession, as long as the action seeks to enforce a contractual obligation that directly affects the title to or possession of the property, such as a contract to sell. The annotation serves to protect the applicant's rights pending the determination of the case and does not require prior proof of ownership or interest.