Heirs of Marasigan v IAC

HEIRS OF MARIA MARASIGAN v. IAC G.R. No. L-69303 July 23, 1987; Guttierez, Jr., J.: FACTS: On April 24, 1975, a civil case entitled “Maria Marron v. Felicisimo Bazar and Fe S. Bazar” was filed before the then CFI of Manila, Br. XIII. This action sought to compel defendants Bazar to execute a registrable Deed of Absolute Sale of Lot No. 2-A covered by T.C.T No. 100612 in favor of Maria Marron. On January 27, 1976, while the above case was still pending, private respondent Marron caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of T.C.T. No. 100612. On February 24, 1976, judgment was rendered in favor of Maria Marron and the judgment having become final and executory, she filed a motion for execution which was granted. To this, a writ of execution was granted but the Bazars refused to surrender their title and to execute the required deed of sale. On November 29, 1978, the lower court ordered the Clerk of Court to execute the deed of sale. But upon presentation of the said deed to the Register of Deeds of Manila for registration, the Deputy Clerk of Court was advised to secure a court order in order to cancel the new title issued in favor of one Maria Marasigan. This is due to a prior deed of absolute sale in favor of such person executed on December 18, 1974. However, it was only on July 5, 1977 that such deed was registered; hence, Marasigan’s title bears with it the above notice of lis pendens. The Bazars filed a petition for relief of the February 24 judgment and while this was pending, the moved to set aside the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over their persons. Meanwhile, Marron’s Land Registration Court case was dismissed by CFI Manila, Br. XIII for said court acting as an L.R.C. cannot act under summary proceedings for having only limited and special jurisdiction. Then, Marron filed another civil case to cancel Marasigan’s TCT. This was denied for being premature. But, on appeal, the IAC ruled in favor of Marron by virtue of the notice of lis pendens. Hence, this petition by the heirs of Marasigan, the latter having died in the course of the proceedings. ISSUE: WON THE PARTY WHO BOUGHT IT WITH A NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS ANNOTATED AT THE BACK OF HER TITLE HAS THE BETTER RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS AGAINST THE PARTY IN WHOSE FAVOR THE NOTICE WAS MADE. HELD: NEGATIVE. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, stating that this question is resolved in favor of the party who had the notice annotated and who won the litigation over the property, Maria Marron in this case. A notice of lis pendens means that a certain property is involved in a litigation and serves as a notice to the whole world that one who buys the same does it at his own risk. It was also a clear notice to Maria Marasigan that there was a court case affecting her rights to the property she had purchased. In the case at bar, although Marasigan acquired the property in question on December 18, 1974 or a little over four (4) months before the filing of Marron’s civil action against the Bazars, the transaction became effective as against third persons only on July 5, 1977, when it was registered with the Register of Deeds of Manila. It is the act of registration which creates constructive notice to the whole world. Section 51 of Act 496, as amended by Section 52 of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529) provides: “Sec. 52. Constructive notice upon registration. – Every conveyance x x x affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.”

#