Ver-Reyes v. Montemayor
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Emma Ver-Reyes claimed to have acquired a lot covered by TCT No. 58459 through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 8, 1976. She paid real estate taxes but failed to register her title. Subsequently, the same property was sold by the same vendors to respondent Irene Montemayor via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 10, 1992. This sale was registered, leading to the cancellation of TCT No. 58459 and the issuance of TCT No. 369793 in respondent Montemayor's name. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a petition for reconveyance against respondent, alleging forgery and fraudulent issuance of title. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, upholding respondent's ownership. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). Pending appeal, petitioner discovered that respondent's title was cancelled in favor of Engracia Isip, and subsequently, a mortgage was constituted on the property by Engracia's heirs. Petitioner investigated and found that respondent had executed a Waiver and Quitclaim recognizing Engracia Isip's title and declaring her own title as simulated and fictitious. The Register of Deeds cancelled respondent's title and annotated the Waiver and Quitclaim. Petitioner attempted to annotate a Notice of Lis Pendens on the new title (TCT No. T-784707) held by Engracia's heirs, but the Register of Deeds denied it, citing that Engracia's heirs were not impleaded in the pending case and their title did not originate from respondent's title. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the CA affirmed the denial, emphasizing the need for the registered owners to be impleaded to protect their right to due process. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari questioning the CA's decision upholding the denial of the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens on TCT No. T-784707.
Issue(s)
Whether the Register of Deeds was justified in denying the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens on TCT No. T-784707, considering the origin of the title of Engracia's heirs and the respondent's admission regarding her own title. Whether a registered owner must be impleaded in a pending case for a notice of lis pendens to be annotated on their title, especially when the applicant's claim is not derived from the registered owner's title.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the denial of the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens.
Ratio Decidendi
On the justification for denying the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens: The Court affirmed the denial, not solely on the ground that Engracia's heirs were not impleaded, but also on other attendant circumstances. These included the fact that respondent's cancelled title did not bear any inscription regarding the pendency of the case, that Engracia's heirs' title did not originate from respondent's title, and that respondent herself declared her title to be simulated and fictitious in a Waiver and Quitclaim. The Court emphasized that Engracia's heirs' title was derived from sources entirely alien to the controversy between the petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, the annotation of the notice of lis pendens would infringe upon their right to due process, as they were never parties to the reconveyance suit. On whether a registered owner must be impleaded: While the Court acknowledged that a notice of lis pendens does not create a right or lien and the applicant is not required to prove ownership, it clarified that this principle does not automatically mandate annotation when the registered owners are not parties to the case. The Court distinguished the present case from Voluntad v. Spouses Dizon, where annotation was allowed because the registered owners were predecessors-in-interest of the applicant. In this case, petitioner's claim was not derived from Engracia's heirs' titles. The Court stressed that allowing the annotation without impleading Engracia's heirs would prejudice their rights and be an inconvenience to their title, especially since their title originated from a different chain of conveyances. Justice and fair play require that they be impleaded before a notice of lis pendens is annotated on their title.
Main Doctrine
A notice of lis pendens may be denied annotation if the registered owners of the property are not impleaded in the pending case, especially when their title is derived from sources entirely alien to the controversy between the original parties, and the annotation would prejudice their right to due process.