This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Civil Case No. Q-28580 is an action for reconveyance of real property. In Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, [42] we described an action for reconveyance as follows: An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another's name. Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, the registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on the certificate of title immediately upon the institution of the action in court. The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third person for value and preserve the claim of the real owner. [43] (Emphases ours.) | |||||
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court, in Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez,[94] described an action for reconveyance as follows: An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another's name. Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, the registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. x x x (Emphases supplied.) | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The litigation subject of the notice of lis pendens must directly involve a specific property which is necessarily affected by the judgment.[6] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Lis pendens literally means "a pending suit," while a notice of lis pendens, inscribed in the certificate of title, is an announcement to the whole world that the covered property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires interest in the property does so at his own risk and subject to the results of the litigation.[15] This is embodied in Section 76 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 which provides that 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 land 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. The notice that this provision speaks of - the notice of lis pendens - is not a lien or encumbrance on the property, but simply a notice to prospective buyers or to those dealing with the property that it is under litigation.[16] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Besides, respondents have only themselves to blame. They are guilty of laches. As early as the filing of Civil Case No. 620-L some time in 1982,[35] they were well aware that the property was already titled in Lasola's name.[36] From that date, up to the time the RTC rendered its Decision in 1986, they did not do anything to protect their rights over the property. First, they did not cause an inscription of a notice of lis pendens on Lasola's title. Without a notice of lis pendens, a third party who acquires the property after relying only on the certificate of tile is a purchaser in good faith. Against such third party, the supposed rights of a litigant cannot prevail, because the former is not bound by the property owner's undertakings not annotated in the transfer certificate of title.[37] Second, respondents likewise did not cause an inscription of the subsequent RTC Decision on Lasola's title showing that they were given the right to redeem the property within 30 days from finality of the Decision dated November 26, 1986. Had they done so, petitioners would have been forewarned of the cloud of doubt hovering over Lasola's claim of ownership, and any transfer of the property to an innocent third person for value would have been avoided and the claim of the real owner preserved.[38] Vigilantibus sed non dormientibus jura subveniunt. The law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.[39] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| While it is true that respondent bank was not a party to the compromise agreement, it is likewise undeniable that, by its own inaction, the respondent bank has taken itself out of the equation as far as its personality before the trial court is concerned after it was declared in default on account of its failure to appear during the pre-trial conference. When the trial court rendered its November 7, 1989 order approving the compromise agreement, the respondent bank was already in default having been declared as such by the lower court on June 6, 1986. A party declared in default loses his standing in court, as such, he cannot appear in court, adduce evidence, be heard or be entitled to notice.[26] | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| 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.[20] 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.[21] 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.[22] | |||||