Vicente v. Avera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Protacio and Dominga Vicente (petitioners) claim ownership of a property based on a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Jovencio Rebuquiao on October 1, 1987. However, Delia Soledad Avera alleges that Jose Rebuquiao, acting under a Special Power of Attorney from Jovencio, executed a separate Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage for the same property in favor of Avera and her spouse on October 9, 1987. Avera subsequently filed a case for the declaration of nullity of her marriage, asserting exclusive ownership over this property, and a notice of lis pendens was annotated on the property's title. Procedural History: Avera's marriage was declared void, and the property in dispute was awarded to her. An alias writ of execution was issued to enforce this judgment, despite the property being registered in the petitioners' names under TCT No. 14216, which carried over the lis pendens annotation. The Sheriff served a Notice to Vacate on the petitioners. In response, the petitioners filed a Complaint for Injunction with a prayer for a TRO before the RTC, Branch 208, Mandaluyong City, seeking to prevent the execution. The RTC issued a permanent injunction, ruling that the petitioners, as registered owners, could not be evicted and that the writ of execution could not be enforced against them. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the petitioners were bound by the lis pendens because its annotation preceded their title's registration. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court on a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the petitioners, Protacio and Dominga Vicente. They seek to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing their injunction complaint. The petitioners contend they are the registered owners and possessors of the property, and their title cannot be collaterally attacked or be subject to the outcome of the JDRC case, as their acquisition predates the lis pendens annotation. They assert that the CA erred in concluding they were bound by the lis pendens and that the injunction should be made permanent to protect their rights as registered owners.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint for injunction despite the petitioners being the registered owners of the property. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint by making an implied recognition that a real property titled under the Torrens system may be attacked collaterally. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Petitioners are bound by the lis pendens when the property was acquired long before the lis pendens was annotated.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 79327, dated June 16, 2005 and October 4, 2005 respectively, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint for injunction despite the petitioners being the registered owners: The Supreme Court held that petitioners have a clear legal right to the property as registered owners and actual possessors. Registration under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 is the operative act that conveys or affects registered land as against third persons, and a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) is the best proof of ownership. The right to possession is an attribute of ownership. Therefore, the implementation of the writ of execution, which would lead to the eviction of the registered owners, would violate their rights. The Court emphasized that until petitioners' title is annulled in a proper proceeding, Avera has no enforceable right over the property. On the issue of whether the CA erred in dismissing the complaint by making an implied recognition that a real property titled under the Torrens system may be attacked collaterally: The Supreme Court ruled that it was erroneous for respondents to assail the deed of sale executed on October 1, 1987, in favor of petitioners, as this constituted a collateral attack on petitioners' TCT, which is prohibited by Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529. The Court clarified that a petition questioning the validity of a deed of sale for registered land is a collateral attack on the certificate of title. Respondents' allegation of the inexistence of the deed of sale effectively attacked the validity of the TCT issued in petitioners' names. On the issue of whether the CA erred in concluding that the Petitioners are bound by the lis pendens when the property was acquired long before its annotation: The Supreme Court clarified that a notice of lis pendens affects a transferee pendente lite from the time of its filing. It binds the transferee by any judgment rendered for or against the transferor, making the transferee's title subject to the pending litigation. However, in this case, the notice of lis pendens pertained to the JDRC case, an action for nullity of marriage between Avera and Domingo. The Court found that Jovencio Rebuquiao, who transferred his title to the petitioners, was not a party to the JDRC case, and his title was not subject to the results of that litigation. Consequently, petitioners' title, derived from Rebuquiao, was also not subject to the results of the JDRC case. The annotation of lis pendens on January 23, 1992, did not affect petitioners' title which was based on a deed of sale executed on October 1, 1987, and registered on July 22, 1998. The Court stressed that the notice of lis pendens does not create a right or lien, but merely serves to protect the registrant's real rights during litigation.
Main Doctrine
A writ of injunction may be granted to protect the rights of a registered owner against the implementation of a writ of execution that unduly deprives them of possession, especially when the basis of the execution is a separate litigation to which the registered owner is not a party and their title has not been annulled in a proper proceeding. A collateral attack on a Torrens title is prohibited.