135.

Viewmaster Construction Corporation vs Maulit applicant’s rights, which will be determined during the
trial.
Facts:
136. Alfredo vs Borras
The subject property (Las Piñas Property) is
registered in the name of Peltan Development, Inc. Facts:
The Chiong/Roxas family owns and controls state
Petitioner spouses Godofredo and Carmen
Investment Trust, Inc. Sometime in 1995, the family
Alfredo owns a 81,524 sq meter parcel of land in
decided to give control and ownership of the
Bataan. While respondent spouses Armando and
corporation to one member of the family who acquires
Adelia Borras files a complaint for specific
51% of the stocks through bidding.
performance against petitioner alleging that petitioner
Defendant Allen Roxas, applied a loan in sold the land to them for P15,000 in order to pay their
order to participate in the bidding with Petitioner debt with DBP for P7,000 and the remaining cash to
Viewmaster as guarantor for the loan in consideration the sellers. Spouses Alfredo delivered the owner’s
for its participation in a Joint Venture Project to duplicate copy of the OCT and introduced the Spouses
develop the estate asset of the corporation. Borras as new owners to the Natawanans, the old
Viewmaster and Roxas, eventually gained control and tenants of the land.
ownership of the corporation. However, after 2 years,
In January 1994, Spouses Borras learned that
Roxas failed to implement the project. Viewmaster
petitioners re-sold portions of the Subject Land to
filed a complaint for Specific Performance and
several persons. Thus, respondents filed an adverse
damages against the corporation and Roxas.
claim with the ROD and discovered that petitioners
On September 11, 1995, viewmaster filed a secured a duplicate copy of the OCT after filing a
Notice of Lis Pendens which was denied by ROD on petition in court that they lost their own copy.
the ground that the petitioner’s action only has an
Petitioners pointed out that there is no written
incidental effect on the property in question. On
instrument evidencing the alleged contract of sale over
appeal, LRA denied the complaint. CA affirmed the
the land in favor of respondents and asserted that
decision.
subsequent buyers were buyers in good faith and for
Issue: value. The trial court favored the respondents and
Whether or not the Las Piñas property is affirmed by CA.
directly involved in Civil Case No. 65277.
Issue:
Ruling:
Whether the deeds of absolute sale and the
Yes. A notice of lis pendens, which literally
transfer certificates of title over the portions of the
means “pending suit”, may involve actions that deal
subject land issued to the subsequent buyers, innocent
not only with the title or possession of a property, but
purchasers in good faith and for value whose
even with the use or occupation thereof.
individual titles to their respective lots are absolute
According to Section 76 of PD No. 1529, a and indefeasible, are valid.
notice of lis pendens is proper in the following cases:
Ruling:
a. An action to recover possession of real estate;
b. An action to quiet title thereto; No. The registration of the adverse claim on
c. An action to remove clouds thereon; February 8, 1994 constituted, by operation of law,
d. An action for partition; and notice to the whole world. From that date onwards, the
e. Any other proceedings of any kind in the Court subsequent buyers were deemed to have constructive
directly affecting the title to the land or the use or notice of the adverse claim of the respondent spouses.
occupation thereof or the buildings thereon. When the subsequent buyers purchased portion of the
The complaint shows that the loan obtained by land on February 22, 1994, they already had
Roxas was guaranteed by petitioner to co-develop with constructive notice of the adverse claim registered
the defendants the Quezon City and the Las Piñas earlier. Thus, the subsequent buyers were not buyers in
properties of the corporation. Hence, by virtue of the good faith. They were aso not registrants in good faith
alleged agreement with Roxas, petitioner has a direct, when they registered their deeds of sale with the ROD.
not merely an incidental interest in the Las Piñas
property. The subsequent buyers’ individual titles to
their lots are not absolutely indefeasible. The defense
The Court is not here saying that petitioner is of indefeasibility of Torrens Title does not extend to
entitled to the reliefs prayed for in its Complaint transferee who take the certificate of title with notice
pending in the RTC. Verily, there is no requirement of a flaw in his title. The principle of indefeasibility of
that the right to or the interest in the property subject title does not apply where fraud attended the issuance
of a lis pendens be proven by the applicant. The Rule of the title as in this case.
merely requires that an affirmative relief be claimed. A
notation of lis pendens neither affects the merits of a
case nor creates a right or a lien. It merely protects the
137. Arrazola vs Bernas 138. Ching vs Enrile
Facts: Facts:
Teresita was allegedly an adopted daughter of Spouses Jesus Ching and Lee Poe Tin
Elviro Bernas. Through a notarized will, Elviro purchased a land from La Fuente who delivered a
disinherited Teresita and instituted his brother Pedro notarized Deed of Sale and Owner’s Duplicate
Bernas and sister Soledad Bernas Alivio as heirs to all Certificate of Title and thereafter took possession to
his property. Upon his death, Pedro filed with ROD a such. The conveyance was not registered to the ROD
verified notice of adverse claim to the properties as prescribed by Section 51 of PD 1529. Instead, the
conveyed to Teresita. petitioners executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim
which was recorded and annotated at the back to the
After the ROD had annotated the adverse
TCT.
claim, Teresita files a motion for the cancellation of
the annotation on the ground that she was not served Three years after, the petitioners received a
with the prior notice and there was no petition for Notice of Levy on Attachment and Writ of Execution
approval or justification filed with the court. issued by the RTC. Also inscribed is a certificate of
sale annotated in favor of spouses Enrile.
The lower court granted the cancellation of the
annotation in accordance with section 110 of Act No. Petitioners filed a Petition to Quiet Title to
496. The oppositors appealed. Real Property asserting ownership of the disputed
property. The RTC favored the petitioners upholding
Issue:
the latter’s superior right over the land in view of the
Whether or not the cancellation of the registration of the adverse claim prior to the certificate
annotation of the adverse claim is proper. of sale annotated in favor of respondents. Upon
appeal, the CA reversed the decision declaring
Ruling: respondents as purchasers in good faith and the
No. It is true that the will of Elviro Bernas has adverse claim had already prescribed after the lapse of
not yet been probated but the fact is that there is a 30 days from its registration.
pending proceeding for its probate. Because of that Issue:
will, Teresita’s titles to the two lots have become
controversial. To alert third persons, or for that matter Whether or not the levy on attachment later
the whole world, to the fact that Pedro A. Bernas and annotated shall prevail over the Adverse Claim earlier
Soledad Bernas Alivio have and adverse claim on the annotated by mere lapse of 30 days and even without
two lots, section 110 of Act No. 496 gives them the any petition in court for its cancellation.
remedy of causing to be annotated their adverse claim
Ruling:
on the titles of the two lots.
No. In the 1996 case of Sajonas vs CA, the
The purpose of annotating the adverse claim
notice of adverse claim remains valid even after the
on the title of the disputed land is to apprise third
lapse of the 30-day period as provided by Section 70
persons that there is a controversy over the ownership
of PD 1529 and that for as long as there is yet no
of the land and to preserve and protect the right of the
petition for its cancellation, the notice of adverse claim
adverse claimant during the pendency of the
remains subsisting. In a petition for cancellation of
controversy. It is a notice to third persons that any
adverse claim, a hearing must first be conducted. The
transaction regarding the disputed land is subject to the
hearing will afford the parties an opportunity to prove
outcome of the dispute.
the propriety or impropriety of the adverse claim.
Hence, it is premature to order the cancellation
Respondents were also not a purchaser in good
of the annotation thereof before it is finally determined
faith when they acquired the disputed lot despite the
by the courts that the titles of Teresita Rosal Arrazola
annotated adverse claim on their title. This is because
to the disputed lots are indefeasible and that
where a party has knowledge of a prior existing
appellants’ claim is devoid of merit.
interest, which is unregistered at the time he acquired a
right to the same land, his knowledge of an
unregistered sale is equivalent to registration.
Hence, the court ruled that respondents were
not purchasers in good faith and, as such, could not
acquire good title to the property as against the former
transferee.