Section 75. APPLICATION FOR NEW CERTIFICATE UPON EXPIRATION OF REDEMPTION PERIOD
Upon the expiration of the time, if any, allowed by law for redemption after registered land has been sold on execution, or taken or sold for the enforcement of a lien on any description, except a mortgage lien, the purchaser at such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition the court for the entry of a new certificate of title to him.
Before the entry of a new certificate of title, the registered owner may pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul such proceedings.
ESTANISLAO PADILLA, JR. vs. PHILIPPINE PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., G.R. No. 141256 July 15, 2005 Facts: Petitioner and his wife are the registered owners of the following real properties. Respondent is a marketing cooperative which had a money claim against petitioner. Respondent filed a civil case against petitioner for collection of a sum of money in the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City which the trial court rendered a decision in its favor On November 28, 1989. The subject property lot was auctioned off to satisfy the judgment, with respondent as the only bidder. Consequently, a certificate of sale was executed in favor of respondent and the same was recorded in the Register of Deeds on August 13, 1990. When petitioner failed to exercise his right of redemption within the 12- month period allowed by law, the court, on motion of respondent, ordered on February 5, 1992 the issuance of a writ of possession for the sheriff to cause the delivery of the physical possession of the properties in favor of respondent On May 17, 1995, respondent filed a motion to direct the Register of Deeds to issue new titles over the properties in its name, alleging that the Register of Deeds (RD) of Bago City would not issue new titles (in respondents name) unless the owners copies were first surrendered to him. On July 3, 1995, the trial court issued an order granting the motion. In a subsequent order dated August 8, 1995, it denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioner appealed. Four years later, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming the order of the trial court. Petitioner argues that respondent failed to follow the correct procedure for the cancellation of a certificate of title and the issuance of a new one. Issues: Whether or not the motion in question is the proper remedy for cancelling petitioners certificates of title and new ones issued in its name. Ruling: Petitioner is correct in assailing as improper respondents filing of a mere motion for the cancellation of the old TCTs and the issuance of new ones as a result of petitioners refusal to surrender his owners duplicate TCTs. This called for a separate cadastral action initiated via petition. The proper course of action was to file a petition in court, rather than merely move, for the issuance of new titles. Sec. 75 of PD 1529 provides that upon the expiration of the time, if any, allowed by law for redemption after the registered land has been sold on execution, or taken or sold for the enforcement of a lien of any description, except a mortgage lien, the purchaser at such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition the court for the entry of a new certificate to him. The reasons behind the law make a lot of sense; it provides due process to a registered landowner (in this case the petitioner) and prevents the fraudulent or mistaken conveyance of land, the value of which may exceed the judgment obligation. The respondent cannot simply disregard proper procedure for the issuance to it of new certificates of title. There was a law on the matter and respondent should have followed it. In any event, respondent can still file the proper petition with the cadastral court for the issuance of new titles in its name.
______________________________________________________________________________ Section 76. NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
No action to recover possession of real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title thereof, or for partition, or other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the title to and or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon, and no judgment, and no proceeding to vacate or reverse any judgment, shall have any effect upon registered land as against persons other than the parties thereto, unless a memorandum or notice stating the institution of such action or proceeding and the court wherein the same is pending, as well as the date of the institution thereof, together with a reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an adequate description of the land affected and the registered owner thereof, shall have been filed and registered.
1. Nature and Purpose of Lis Pendens
Lis Pendens- Latin term which literally means Pending Suit Notice of Lis Pendens o Announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation o A warning that one who acquires an interest over litigated property does so at his own risk or that he gambles on the result over litigation over property Purpose o Founded upon Public Policy and Necessity o Keeps the subject matter of litigation within the power of the court until the judgment or the decree shall have entered; otherwise, by successive alienations pending the litigation, its judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution.
Two Fold Effect of the Notice: i. Keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until litigation is over. ii. Binds purchaser, bona fide or not, of the subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that court will promulgate subsequently. *Note: It is not correct to speak of it as part of the doctrine of notice, the purchaser pendent elite is affected not by notice but because the law doesnt allow litigating parties to give to others, pending the litigation, rights to the property in dispute so as to prejudice the other party. Notice is only incidental in the main case. It does not affect the merits thereof. Notice need not be annotated on the owners certificate of title (such annotation is only necessary in voluntary sales), entry in the day book of the Register of Deeds is sufficient notice to third parties.
2. Notice of Lis Pendens: When Appropriate When not proper 1. Action to recover possession of real estate 2. Action to quiet title thereto 3. Action to remove clouds thereon 4. Action for partition; and 5. Any other proceeding of any kind in court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof or the building thereon
1. Preliminary attachments 2. Proceedings for the probate wills 3. Levies on execution 4. Proceedings for administration of estate of deceased persons 5. Proceedings in which the only object is the recovery of a money judgement
3. Contents of Notice of Lis Pendens
a. Statement of the institution of an action or proceeding b. The court where the same is pending c. The date of its institution d. Reference to the number of the certificate of title of land e. An adequate description of the land affected and its registered owner
4. Principle of Primus Tempore, Potior Jure; Effect of Lis Pendens
The principle of primus tempore, potior jure gains greater significance in the law on double sale of immovable property Reliance on the principle of constructive notice operates only such upon the registration of the notice of lis pendens More fundamentally, a notice of lis pendens is only a warning to the prospective purchaser or incumbrancer that the particular property is in litigation and that he should keep his hands off the same, unless he intends to gamble on the results of the litigation
5. Carry over of notice subsequent titles In case of subsequent transfers or sales, the RD is duty bound to carry over the notice of lis pendens on all titles to be issued Act of RD in erasing notice of lis pendens is in plain violation of his duty, constitutes misfeasance in the performance of his duties for which he may be held civilly and even criminally liable for any prejudice caused to innocent third persons and cannot affect those who are protected by the notice inscribed in the original title Such entry of Lis pendens cannot be cancelled until the final termination of the litigation (General Rule)
COL. FRANCISCO DELA MERCED, substituted by his heirs vs GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and Spouses VICTOR and MILAGROS MANLONGAT, G.R. No. 167140 November 23, 2011
Facts: This case involves five registered parcels of land originally owned by, and titled in the name of, Jose C. Zulueta (Zulueta), as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title wherein several lots contained in TCT No. 26105 was mortgaged to GSIS, which eventually foreclosed. Upon consolidation of GSISs ownership, TCT No. 26105 in Zuluetas name was cancelled, and TCT No. 23554 was issued in GSISs name. Upon learning of the foreclosure, petitioners predecessor, Francisco Dela Merced (Dela Merced) filed a complaint praying for the nullity of the GSIS foreclosure on the subject properties (Lots 6, 7, 8, and 10 of Block 2 and Lot 8 of Block 8) on the ground that he, not the Zuluetas, was the owner of these lots at the time of the foreclosure. Dela Merced caused the annotation of lis pendens on GSISs TCT No. 23554 on September 21, 1984 in order to protect his interests in the subject properties. Dela Merced died in 1988 and was substituted by his heirs, the petitioners in the instant case. On September 11, 2001 Decision was rendered by this Court in G.R. No. 140398 that the foreclosure sale of Lot originally covered by TCT 26105, and the subsequent certificates of titles issued to GSIS as well as TCT No. PT-94007 in the name of Elizabeth Manlongat are declared null and void. Such decision has long attained finality but could not be executed because of the objections raised by the Register of Deeds (RD) and respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The respondent argues that the ddecision only ordered the cancellation of GSISs titles over the subject properties. It did not order the cancellation of all derivative titles of GSISs transferees. These objections, which the trial court found insurmountable in its assailed February 9, 2005 Order, are now presented to us for resolution. Issue: Whether a final and executory judgment against GSIS and Manlongat can be enforced against their successors-in-interest or holders of derivative titles Ruling: A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the said property. Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any cancellation or issuance of the title of the land involved as well as any subsequent transaction affecting the same, would have to be subject to the outcome of the litigation. In other words, upon the termination of the litigation there can be no risk of losing the property or any part thereof as a result of any conveyance of the land or any encumbrance that may be made thereon posterior to the filing of the notice of lis pendens It is not disputed that petitioners caused the annotation of lis pendens on TCT No. 23554, which covers Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2, as early as September 21, 1984. On July 29, 1985 and August 24, 1998, TCT No. 23554 was cancelled with respect to Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2 and new individual titles were issued to Victorino and Dimaguila. Both titles had the notice of lis pendens which was carried over from TCT No. 23554. Ineluctably, both Victorino and Dimaguila had notice of the litigation involving GSISs ownership over the subject properties, and were bound by the outcome of the litigation. When a transferee pendente lite takes property with notice of lis pendens, such transferee undertakes to respect the outcome of the litigation. As held in Selph v. Vda. de Aguilar, an order to cancel the transferors title may be enforced against his transferee, whose title is expressly subject to the outcome of the litigation by the fact of the annotation of lis pendens. The title obtained by the transferee pendente lite affords him no special protection; he cannot invoke the rights of a purchaser in good faith and cannot acquire better rights than those of his predecessor-in-interest. The Court cannot accept GSISs theory that the dispositive portion of the Decision in G.R. No. 140398 is enforceable only against GSISs title because it does not contain the phrase and all its derivative titles. The Court explained that an action is binding on the privies of the litigants even if such privies are not literally parties to the action. Their inclusion in the writ of execution does not vary or exceed the terms of the judgment. In the same way, the inclusion of the derivative titles in the writ of execution will not alter the Decision in G.R. No. 140398 ordering the cancellation of GSISs title.
__________________________________________________________________________ Section 77. CANCELLATION OF LIS PENDENS
Before final judgment, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be registered. It may also be cancelled by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who caused the registration thereof.
Cancellation of Lis Pendens General Rule: cannot be cancelled while action is pending and undetermined Exceptions: a. Upon order of the court b. Upon action by the RD at the instance of the party who caused the registration of the notice. Grounds: i. If the annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title of adverse party; or ii. When the annotation is not necessary to protect the tite of the party who caused it to be recorded.