Heirs of Lopez v. Enriquez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alfonso Sandoval and Roman Ozaeta, Jr. applied for the registration of title to a parcel of land before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. The court granted the application, and the decision became final and executory. Subsequently, the National Land Titles and Deeds Administration issued Decrees of Registration in the names of Sandoval and Ozaeta. Later, the Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. filed a motion alleging that Sandoval and Ozaeta had sold the land to Eugenio Lopez, Sr. in 1970 and prayed that the court consider the Deed of Absolute Sale and issue the decree of registration in their names as successors-in-interest. Procedural History: The Register of Deeds of Marikina City issued Original Certificates of Title (OCT) Nos. O-1603 and O-1604 in favor of Sandoval and Ozaeta. The petitioners, heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr., filed a motion to declare these decrees and titles void due to alleged inconsistencies in the dates of issuance. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) Administrator denied this request. Subsequently, the petitioners applied to the Register of Deeds of Marikina City to annotate a notice of lis pendens on the OCTs, based on their motion to declare the titles void. The Register of Deeds denied this application, stating that a notice of lis pendens requires the original petition or complaint. The petitioners elevated this denial to the LRA in consulta, which affirmed the Register of Deeds' ruling, holding that a notice of lis pendens based on a motion is not registrable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the LRA's decision. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that their motion to declare the decrees void is a proper basis for filing a notice of lis pendens and that they can file such a motion despite the order of general default not being lifted. They contend that as successors-in-interest, they have legal standing. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The core of the petition revolves around whether a notice of lis pendens can be based on a motion to declare decrees void, and whether the petitioners, as alleged successors-in-interest who did not directly participate in the original land registration proceedings, have the legal personality to file such a notice, especially given the subsisting order of general default.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners' motion to declare void the decrees issued by the Land Registration Authority is a proper basis for filing a notice of lis pendens. Whether petitioners can file the motion to declare void the decrees issued by the Land Registration Court in LRC Case No. N-18887 despite the fact that the court has not lifted the general order of default.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Land Registration Authority's ruling is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Lis Pendens Based on a Motion: The Court held that petitioners' motion to declare void the decrees and titles was insufficient to give them standing in the land registration proceedings for the purpose of filing an application for a notice of lis pendens. A notice of lis pendens requires an action or proceeding directly affecting the title to land. Petitioners were not parties to the original land registration case (LRC No. N-18887), which had long become final and executory. Their motion was filed after the decision became final, and they had not been admitted as parties by the court. The Register of Deeds correctly denied the application for a notice of lis pendens because petitioners failed to present the requisite pleading (a complaint or petition initiating an action) to the Register of Deeds. The notice of lis pendens is an incident in an action, and it requires the pendency of a suit directly affecting the title to the property. On the Necessity of Lifting the Order of General Default: The Court agreed with the LRA and CA that petitioners lacked legal personality because they were not parties to the original land registration case and the order of general default had not been lifted. However, the Court clarified that petitioners' procedural error was not solely the failure to lift the default order, but the filing of the motion itself after the decision had become final and executory. A motion to lift an order of general default must be filed before entry of final judgment. Since the decision in LRC No. N-18887 became final in 1991 and petitioners filed their motion in 1997, even a motion to lift the default order would have been out of time. The Court reiterated that a party declared in default loses standing in court and cannot appear, adduce evidence, or be heard, unless the order of default is set aside on valid grounds and within the prescribed period. Petitioners, by filing a motion to declare the decrees void, effectively took the role of oppositors without having been admitted as parties to the proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A notice of lis pendens is not registrable based on a mere motion to declare void decrees and titles, especially when the movants are not parties to the original land registration case and the motion is filed after the decision has become final and executory. The proper remedy in such cases, if fraud is alleged, is an action for reconveyance filed in ordinary courts, not with the land registration court.