| TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
- versus - | G.R. No. 150462
Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. |
| LUIS FAJARDO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, Respondents. |
Promulgated:
June 15, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
x x x.
In Degollacion v. Register of Deeds of Cavite[38] we held that if two certificates of title purport to include the same land, whether wholly or partly, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title were derived. Citing our earlier ruling in Mathay v. Court of Appeals[39] we declared:
x x x where two transfer certificates of title have been issued on different dates, to two different persons, for the same parcel of land even if both are presumed to be title holders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title should prevail. On the assumption that there was regularity in the registration leading to the eventual issuance of subject transfer certificates of title, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived. Should there be only one common original certificate of title, x x x, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration.[40]
From the recitals in the transfer certificates of title respectively held by petitioner and private respondent, as well as the records of the LRA, there appears not just one but two different original certificates. TCT No. T-8129 on its face shows that the land covered was originally registered as OCT No. 5678 under Decree No. N-111862 (Velasquez), while TCT No. T-27380 indicates the original registration as OCT No. 9587 under Decree No. N-141990 (Gregorio). Both the LRC and CA found TCT No. 107729 and its derivative titles TCT Nos. 4635 and T-8129 as void and inexistent since OCT No. 5678 in the name of Velasquez had been nullified under the order for execution of the final judgment in LRC Case Nos. N-5053 and N-5416 in which Gregorio prevailed. Consequently, the lower courts upheld the title of private respondent which alone can be traced to the original certificate in the name of Emilio Gregorio (OCT No. 9578).
Petitioner, however, asserts that the entries in his TCT contain errors and insists that TCT Nos. 107729, 4635 and T-8129 actually emanated from the application for registration of Emilio Gregorio in LRC Case No. N-5053, LRC Record No. N-27523 pursuant to the Order of the Regional Trial Court in LRC Case Nos. N-5053 and N-5416, as in fact TCT No. 107729 were issued along with TCT Nos. 107727 and 107728 covering two other lots also in the name of the Heirs of Emilio Gregorio by way of implementing the final judgment of said court in the case between Gregorio and Velasquez, as affirmed by the CA and this Court.
We disagree.
TCT No. 107729 in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio issued on April 29, 1986, on its face showed badges of irregularity in its issuance. First, the technical description stated that it covers a portion of Lot 1, plan Psu-204785, LRC Case No. N-5416 instead of N-5053. Second, the decree number and date of issuance, as well as OCT number clearly indicate that the original decree pertained to Velasquez and not Gregorio. Third, the name of the registered owner in the original certificate is not Velasquez or Gregorio but “Delta Motor Corp.” And fourth, the certificate from which TCT No. 107729 was supposedly a transfer should have been the OCT (of Gregorio) and not those unfamiliar TCT numbers indicated therein. The annotations regarding the supposed original registration of TCT No. 107729 read as follows:
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on the 12th day of December in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-six in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal Volume A-69 page 78 as Original Certificate of Title No. 5678 pursuant to Decree No. N-111862 issued in L.R.C. _____________ Record No. N-28735 Case No. N-5416 in the name of Delta Motor Corp. .
This certificate is a transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27737/A/T-145-A S-8722/T-41 which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.[41] (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing errors are not mere typographical as petitioner claims, but serious discrepancies in the registration process. In fact, it is not far-fetched that the erroneous entries could have been intended to create the impression that TCT No. 107729 was a separate and distinct title from the previously issued TCT No. S-91911 even if they pertain to one and the same lot adjudicated to Emilio Gregorio. Such conclusion is reinforced by the unexplained inaction or failure of the heirs of Gregorio to rectify the alleged errors in their title before selling the property to petitioner. The heirs of Gregorio knew that their TCT No. S-91911 bore encumbrances in favor of third parties, notably the notice of pending litigation (Lis Pendens) involving the property covered by said title before the CFI of Pasig, Metro Manila in Civil Case No. 35305, which Trinidad caused to be annotated thereon. The issuance of a new certificate with exactly identical entries as that of TCT No. S-91911 (as to its original registration) would mean that the aforesaid annotations had to be carried over to such new certificate. Strangely, it is TCT No. 107729 which RD Alejandro R.Villanueva upheld in his February 5, 1989 Report notwithstanding its later issuance and the glaring errors in the entries of its original registration. It must be stressed that OCT No. 5677, 5678, 5679 and 5680 and its derivative titles were ordered cancelled precisely because they were issued pursuant to Decree Nos. N-111862 to N-111865 issued in LRC Case No. N-5416 in the name of Velasquez, who lost in the final judgment rendered in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R, and whose claim to the lots covered thereby were declared null and void. Logically, therefore, any new certificate of title to be issued to the heirs of Gregorio by virtue of the aforesaid final judgment adjudicating the land to Emilio Gregorio, could not possibly be a transfer or replacement of the aforesaid void OCTs in the name of Velasquez.
But even granting that the subject entries in TCT No. 107729 were mere clerical errors and assuming arguendo that said certificate was issued to implement the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R, such execution is tainted with infirmity. The March 21, 1986 order issued by the RTC of Pasig did not only cancel OCT No. 5678 (and other titles in the name of Velasquez covering the same lots adjudicated to Gregorio), it also ordered the issuance of new certificates of title in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio despite having been informed by the LRA and the Register of Deeds that there was already issued OCT No. 9587 over the same lot in the name of Emilio Gregorio, which was replaced with TCT No. S-91911 in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio following the decision rendered by the appellate court (CA-G.R. No. 56015-R) in another case filed by Gregorio against spouses Parami (Civil Case No. 16977).
At this point, it serves well to emphasize that upon finality of judgment in land registration cases, the winning party does not file a motion for execution as in ordinary civil actions. Instead, he files a petition with the land registration court for the issuance of an order directing the Land Registration Authority to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then sent to the Register of Deeds for inscription in the registration book, and issuance of the original certificate of title.[42] The LRC upon the finality of the judgment adjudicating the land to an applicant shall, following the prescribed procedure, merely issues an order for the issuance of a decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title in the name of such applicant.[43]
In this case, the RTC of Pasig, cognizant of a previous decree of registration instead ordered the Register of Deeds to issue new certificates in favor of the heirs of Gregorio, erroneously declaring that such certificates are in lieu of OCT Nos. 5677, 5678, 5679 and 5680. Said court exceeded its authority when it ordered the issuance of transfer certificates in the name of the heirs of Gregorio despite the existence of TCT No. S-91911 already issued to them covering the sae parcel of land. This caused the duplication of titles held by the heirs of Gregorio over Lot 1. Thus, while there was only one decree and original certificate issued to the common predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and private respondent, Emilio Gregorio, the latter’s heirs were able to secure two transfer certificates covering the same land. Indeed it could not order the issuance of another OCT as it would result to duplication of titles or “double titling.”[44] A land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case.[45] Issuance of another decree covering the same land is therefore null and void.[46]
In the light of the LRA Report dated September 12, 1984 stating that compliance with the July 30, 1971 final judgment rendered by the CA which reversed the LRC decision and adjudicated Lots 1, 3 and 4 in favor of Emilio Gregorio, would result in duplication of titles, it was grave error for the RTC of Pasig to grant the motion for execution filed by the heirs of Emilio Gregorio who sought, -- in the guise of implementing the July 30, 1971 CA decision -- the issuance of new titles in their name notwithstanding the existence of OCT No. 9587 and TCT No. S-91911. Given such vital information, there exists a compelling need for the land registration court to ascertain the facts and “address the likelihood of duplication of titles x x x, an eventuality that will undermine the Torrens system of land registration.”[47]
Petitioner nonetheless assails OCT No. 9587 as null and void, having been issued when the adverse decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R was elevated by it to this Court. Following the doctrine in Director of Lands v. Reyes (supra), it is asserted that OCT No. 9587 should not have been issued because the decision in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R was not yet final at the time, pending resolution by this Court of the appeal by Velasquez (G.R. No. L-34239-40).
In Director of Lands v. Reyes (supra), this Court laid down the rule that execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding and the certificate of title thereby issued is null and void. In that case, the assignee of the original applicant applied for a motion for issuance of a decree of registration before the lower court pending the approval of the Record on Appeal. The motion was opposed by the Government which appealed the lower court’s decision adjudicating the land to the said assignee. We thus ruled:
Under the circumstances of this case, the failure of the appellants to serve a copy of their Notice of Appeal to the counsel for the adjudicatee Roman C. Tamayo is not fatal to the appeal because, admittedly, he was served with a copy of the original, as well as the Amended Record on Appeal in both of which the Notice of Appeal is embodied. Hence, such failure cannot impair the right of appeal.
What is more, the appeal taken by the Government was from the entire decision, which is not severable. Thus, the appeal affects the whole decision.
In any event, We rule that execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding. It is fraught with dangerous consequences. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal.
A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the Register of Deeds concerned issues the corresponding certificate of title.
Consequently, the lower court acted without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the issuance of a decree of registration despite the appeal timely taken from the entire decision a quo.[48]
OCT No. 9587 on its face showed that its basis was Decree No. N-141990 issued on October 31, 1972 pursuant to the January 31, 1966 decision of the CFI in Land Reg. Case No. N-5053 and CA decision dated July 30, 1971. Per records of this Court, however, Velasquez had filed a petition for review of the CA decision. Be that as it may, the premature issuance of the decree in favor of Emilio Gregorio and the corresponding original certificate of title in his name did not affect his acquisition of title over the subject land considering that Velasquez’s petition was eventually dismissed. Neither can petitioner, by reason alone of defective issuance of OCT No. 9587, claim a right over the subject land superior to that acquired by the private respondent.
A reading of the annotations of encumbrances at the back of TCT No. T-27380 which were carried over from TCT No. S-91911 in the name of the Heirs of Gregorio, would show that during the pendency of Civil Case No. 35305 filed before the CFI of Rizal by private respondent and Trinidad, the latter caused the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens involving the same properties of the defendants therein, the heirs of Emilio Gregorio. The notice of lis pendens was registered as Entry No. 21398[49] on TCT No. S-91911.
Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment. Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. Its notice is an announcement to the whole world that a particular property is in litigation and serves 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 said property.[50]
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect: (1) to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations; and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently.[51] Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any subsequent transaction affecting the land involved would have to be subject to the outcome of the litigation.[52]
Petitioner being a mere transferee at the time the decision of the RTC of Pasig in Civil Case No. 35305 had become final and executory on December 6, 1988, it is bound by the said judgment which ordered the heirs of Emilio Gregorio to convey Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Psu-204875 in favor of private respondent and Trinidad. As such buyer of one of the lots to be conveyed to private respondent pursuant to the court’s decree with notice that said properties are in litigation, petitioner merely stepped into the shoes of its vendors who lost in the case. Such vested right acquired by the private respondent under the final judgment in his favor may not be defeated by the subsequent issuance of another certificate of title to the heirs of Gregorio respecting the same parcel of land. For it is well-settled that being an involuntary transaction, entry of the notice of lis pendens in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds is sufficient to constitute registration and such entry is notice to all persons of such claim.[53]
“It is to be noted that the notation of the lis pendens on the back of the owner’s duplicate is not mentioned for the purpose of constituting a constructive notice because usually such owner’s duplicate certificate is presented for the purpose of the annotation later, and sometimes not at all until [it is] ordered by the court.”[54] Strictly speaking, the lis pendens annotation is not to be referred to “as a part of the doctrine of notice; the purchaser pendente lite is affected, not by notice, but because the law does not allow litigating parties to give to others, pending the litigation, rights to the property in dispute so as to prejudice the opposite party. The doctrine rests upon public policy, not notice.”[55] Thus we have held that one who buys land where there is a pending notice of lis pendens cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in good faith; neither can he have acquired better rights than those of his predecessor in interest.[56]
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the CA did not err in affirming the trial court’s order dismissing petitioner’s complaint for quieting of title and ordering the cancellation of its TCT No. T-8129.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 30, 2001 and Resolution dated October 23, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60712 are AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
| |
[1] Rollo, pp. 34-49. Penned by Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr., with Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Alicia L. Santos concurring.
[2] Id. at 51-52. Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Alicia L. Santos concurring.
[3] Id. at 54-59. Penned by Judge Alfredo R. Enriquez.
[4] Records (Vol. 2), pp. 460-463.
[5] Id. at 479.
[6] Id. at 479-480.
[7] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 39-47.
[8] Id. at 47.
[9] Id. at 34.
[10] Id. at 35-37.
[11] Id. at 37.
[12] Records (Vol. 2), p. 476.
[13] Id. at 491.
[14] Id. at 481-482.
[15] Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[16] Records (Vol. 2), p. 483.
[17] Id. at 495-496.
[18] Id.
[19] Id. at 487-488.
[20] Id. at 487 (back), 489-490.
[21] Id. at 370.
[22] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 14-15.
[23] Records (Vol. 2), pp. 485-486.
[24] Id. at 492-494.
[25] Rollo, pp. 61-62.
[26] Id. at 62.
[27] Id. at 63.
[28] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 7-11.
[29] Rollo, p. 60.
[30] Top Management Programs Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102996, May 28, 1993, 222 SCRA 763.
[31] Id. at 772.
[32] Rollo, pp. 54-59.
[33] Id. at 59.
[34] Id. at 34-49.
[35] Nos. L-27594 & 28144, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177.
[36] Secuya v. Vda. de Selma, G.R. No. 136021, February 22, 2000, 326 SCRA 244, 246.
[37] Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105902, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 137, 146-147.
[38] G.R. No. 161433, August 29, 2006, 500 SCRA 108, 115.
[39] G.R. No. 115788, September 17, 1998, 295 SCRA 556.
[40] Id. at 578.
[41] Records (Vol. 2), p. 487.
[42] Republic v. Heirs of Abrille, No. L-39248, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 57, 66; Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, No. L-67451, May 4, 1988, 161 SCRA 56, 61.
[43] SEC. 30 of P.D. No. 1529 provides:
Sec. 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of decree. –x x x
After judgment has become final and executory, it shall devolve upon the court to forthwith issue an order in accordance with Section 39 of this Decree to the Commissioner for the issuance of the decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title in favor of the person adjudged entitled to registration.
[44] See Heirs of the Late Jose De Luzuriaga v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 168848 & 169019, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 299, 314.
[45] Laburada v. Land Registration Authority, G.R. No. 101387, March 11, 1998, 287 SCRA 333, 343.
[46] See Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103558, November 17, 1992, 215 SCRA 783, 788.
[47] See Heirs of the Late Jose De Luzuriaga v. Republic, supra note 44.
[48] Supra note 35 at 185-186.
[49] Rollo, p. 62.
[50] Associated Bank v. Pronstroller, G.R. No. 148444, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 113, 133, citing Romero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142406, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 483, 492.
[51] Id., citing Romero v. Court of Appeals, id. at 492-493 and Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 146262, January 21, 2005, 449 SCRA 173, 186.
[52] Vicente v. Avera, G.R. No. 169970, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 634, 643.
[53] Director of Lands v. Reyes, supra note 35 at 188; Caviles, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 102648, November 24, 1999, 319 SCRA 24, 32, citing Levin v. Bass, et al., 91 Phil. 419, 437 (1952).
[54] A. H. Noblejas and E. H. Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 2007 Ed., pp. 436-437.
[55] Id. at 437, citing 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, p. 2033, SCRA Annotation on Civil Law, the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree, 1983 Ed., pp. 118-119 quoted in Tirado v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 84201, August 3, 1990, 188 SCRA 321, 326-327.
[56] Yu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109078, December 25, 1995, 251 SCRA 509, 513-514, citing Constantino v. Espiritu, No. L-23268, June 30, 1972, 45 SCRA 557, 563 and Tanchoco v. Aquino, No. L-30670, September 15, 1987, 154 SCRA 1, 15; see Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, No. L-34404, June 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 207, 232.
