Mahinay v. Sorensen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Makilito B. Mahinay (Mahinay) filed a complaint for specific performance against the owners of Lot 5, seeking to enforce a preferential right to buy a portion of the property based on a compromise agreement. The owners later sold the entire Lot 5 to Felimon Suarez, which Mahinay alleged violated his preferential right. Mahinay annotated an adverse claim and a notice of lis pendens on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 117531. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that the transaction between the owners and Suarez was a sale and that Mahinay was entitled to redeem the property. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and became final and executory. Subsequently, Suarez executed a Deed of Conveyance in favor of Mahinay, who deposited the redemption price. The RTC ordered the owners to vacate the premises and turn over the owner's copy of TCT No. 117531 to Mahinay. However, the owner's copy was in the possession of Jocelyn B. Sorensen (Sorensen) by virtue of a real estate mortgage executed by the owners after Mahinay's complaint was filed. Sorensen claimed to be an innocent mortgagee for value, having relied on the owner's duplicate copy of the title which, at the time of the mortgage, did not show any adverse annotation. Procedural History: Mahinay filed motions to compel Sorensen to turn over TCT No. 117531. The RTC initially denied these motions, citing the superiority of a mortgage lien over a notice of lis pendens. However, upon Mahinay's reiteratory motion, the RTC granted it, ordering Sorensen to surrender the title. Sorensen filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed it for a defective verification. Sorensen's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Meanwhile, Mahinay filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 165338) against the RTC judge and Sorensen, alleging grave abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of the law. Sorensen also filed her own petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 179375) assailing the CA's dismissal of her petition. The Petition: Mahinay sought to nullify the RTC resolutions denying his motion to compel Sorensen to turn over TCT No. 117531 and charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law. Sorensen sought to reverse the CA's dismissal of her petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the resolutions dated December 12, 2003, and July 20, 2004, by refusing to implement the final and executory decision and making erroneous conclusions of law. Whether the RTC judge violated the constitutional period for resolving motions; and whether the administrative charges against the RTC judge for gross ignorance of the law, abdication of judicial duty, and failure to resolve a motion within the prescribed period are meritorious. Whether the petition in G.R. No. 165338 was rendered moot by subsequent events. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Sorensen's petition for certiorari due to a defective verification. Whether Sorensen, as an alleged innocent mortgagee for value, has a superior right to retain possession of TCT No. 117531 despite the prior annotation of Mahinay's notice of lis pendens.
Ruling
The petition in G.R. No. 165338 is dismissed for being moot. The administrative charge of failure to resolve a motion within the prescribed period against Judge Ireneo Lee Gako, Jr. is referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action. The petition in G.R. No. 179375 is denied, and the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated April 24, 2007, and August 3, 2007, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the abuse of discretion by the RTC: The provided text does not contain a ratio decidendi directly addressing whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion. Therefore, no specific ratio can be provided based on the given information. On the administrative charges against Judge Gako and the constitutional period for resolving motions: The Court found no merit in the administrative charges of gross ignorance of the law and abdication of judicial duty, noting that Mahinay's allegations appeared to be ploys to coerce the judge. Disciplinary proceedings do not complement or substitute judicial remedies. Regarding the charge of failure to resolve a motion within the prescribed period, the Court noted that Judge Gako was not given an opportunity to comment, thus violating his right to due process, and referred this specific charge to the Office of the Court Administrator. The provided text does not contain a ratio decidendi directly addressing whether the RTC judge violated the constitutional period for resolving motions. Therefore, no specific ratio can be provided based on the given information. On the mootness of G.R. No. 165338: The Supreme Court held that Mahinay's petition in G.R. No. 165338 was rendered moot because Mahinay filed a reiteratory motion with the RTC, which the judge granted, ordering Sorensen to surrender the title. The Court reiterated the principle that courts will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved and decline jurisdiction of moot cases. Further developments, including the RTC's order to declare the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 117531 null and void and issue a new one, also contributed to mooting the petition. On the dismissal of Sorensen's petition by the CA: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of Sorensen's petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 179375 because Sorensen failed to state in the verification that the allegations were true and correct based on authentic records, as required by Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Verification is not a mere ritual but serves to assure the truthfulness and good faith of the allegations. While defects in verification can sometimes be remedied, the Court found no circumstances that warranted a liberal application of the rules. On Sorensen's claim as an innocent mortgagee for value: The Court rejected Sorensen's claim that she had a superior right as an innocent mortgagee for value. Mahinay's notice of lis pendens was annotated on the original TCT No. 117531 on August 17, 1994, prior to Sorensen's real estate mortgage. The Court applied the principle of prior est in tempore, potior est in jure, stating that Mahinay's prior registration of the notice of lis pendens bound the whole world, including Sorensen. The annotation on the original copy of the title at the Registry of Deeds is sufficient to constitute constructive notice, even if the owner's duplicate copy does not reflect it.
Main Doctrine
A notice of lis pendens, duly annotated on the original copy of a Torrens title on file with the Registry of Deeds, constitutes constructive notice to third parties and binds them to the outcome of the litigation, even if the owner's duplicate copy does not reflect the annotation. The prior registration of a notice of lis pendens grants a preferential right over subsequent liens and encumbrances.