rmyera

In the meantime, Fernandez failed to pay his various loans which prompted the Cues to institute an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Before Fernandez could pay his obligation with the Sps, a decision had been rendered causing the former's title to be declared null and void. The decision had become final and executory. But meanwhile, the Cues applied for and were granted a writ of execution. The subject realties were then levied upon and sold at public auction where Rosario Mota was the highest bidder. After the period of redemption have lapsed, Rosario Mota was issued the Sheriffs Deed of Sale. Thereafter, title was issued on their name.
On December 7, 1971 Mota, through her lawyer, notified the tenants occupying M. Torres Building that she is the new owner thereof and henceforth payment of their rentals should be made to her. Torres filed a complaint against the Sps Mota and restraining the latter from collecting rentals for the title of Fernandez had been delared as void.

Chavarria vs Francisco Fernandez and Mota Cue

Facts:
Mariano Torres is a registered owner of a parcel of land located in Quezon Blvd and Razon Street.
Sometime in 1966, Francusco Fernandez, Torres'brother-in-law misrepresenting to be the atty-in-fact of Torres, obtained another copy of the certificate after reporting that the duplicate copy was lost.
Fernandez then forged a simulated deed of sale of the property in his favor. Consequently, the title was cancelled and a new title was issued in Fernandez' name.
He then mortgaged the property to Rosario Mota, wife of Ernesto Cue and also to Angela Fermin who later assigned her credit to Sps Cue. The mortgages and the assignment were annotated.
On March 18, 1968, Torres caused Fernandez' title a notice of adverse claim. Also, a notice of lis pendens was annotated at the back of Fernandez TCT after lodging a case against Fernandez to annul the title.

There is no requirement that the right to or the interest in the property subject of a lis pendens be proven by the applicant. The Rule 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 applicant's rights, which will be determined during the trial.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner failed to adequately describe the subject property in its complaint and in the notice of lis pendens.
Whether or not the petitioner's "Notice of Lis Pendens" was registrable

Held: There was a substantial compliance with the requirement requirement that the notice should contain a technical description of the property is to ensure that the same can be distinguished and readily identified.

Yes, the notice of lis pendens directly involved the land in question, because it prayed for the enforcement of a prior agreement between herein petitioner and Defendant Allen Roxas to co-develop the latter's property. . A notice of lis pendens, which literally means "pending suit," may involve actions that deal not only with the title or possession of a property, but even with the use or occupation thereof.

On September 8, 1995, petitioner Viewmaster filed a Complaint for Specific Performance, Enforcement of Implied Trust and Damages against State Investment Trust, Inc. Northeast Land Development, Inc., State Properties Corporation (formerly Peltan Development, Inc.) and defendant Allen Roxas.
petitioner Viewmaster filed a Notice of Lis Pendens with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City and Las Piñas for the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens on Transfer Certificate of Title No. (S-17992) 12473-A, registered in the name of Peltan Development, Inc. (now State Properties Corporation).
Register of Deeds denied the request of annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens on the ground that it doesnt contain an adequate description of the subject property and action is only incidental effect on the property in question.
LRA, concurred and CA affirmed the ruling of the LRA.

Viewmaster Construction Corporation vs EDGARDO CASTRO

Facts:

Defendant Allen Roxas, one of the stockholders of State Investment Trust, Inc. applied for a loan with First Metro Investment, Inc. in the amount of P36,500,000.00 in order to participate in the bidding. First Metro granted the loan only if he procure a guarantor to secure the payment of the said loan.
Petitioner Viewmaster agreed to act as guarantor for the aforementioned loan in consideration for its participation in a Joint Venture Project to co-develop the real estate assets of State Investment Trust, Inc. As a result of the loan, defendant Allen Roxas, eventually gained control and ownership of State Investment Trust, Inc.
After the lapse of 2 years, he failed to take the necessary action to implement the Joint Venture Project with petitioner Viewmaster to co-develop the subject properties. Petitioners demanded defendant Allen Roxas to comply with the agreement.

Issue: whether or not the motion in question is the proper remedy for cancelling petitioner’s certificates of title and new ones issued in its name.

Held: No, it calls for a separate cadastral action initiated via petition. , the party in interest may file a petition in court to compel the surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. If for any reason
the outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the same as well well as the ssuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate. as per section 107 of PD 1529

Padilla vs Phil Producers' Cooperative Marketing Association Inc
Facts:
Respondent is a marketing cooperative which had a money claim against petitioner. 9 On November 28, 1989, the trial court rendered a decision in respondent’s favor. On May 31, 1990 the Court ussyed a writ of execution and that consequently the three lots that the petitioner owns were levied. Being the sole bidder, the respondent was issued a certificate of sale that was recorded in the Register of Deeds. The petitioners failed to redeem the land and the issuance of a writ of possession cause the delivery of the physical possession of the properties in favor of therespondents. On May 17, 1995, the respondents file a motion directing the Register of Deeds to issue new titles over the properties since the petitioner refused to surrender the title. Petitioner contends that it is improper for the respondent to file a mere motion for cancellation as a result of their refusal to surrender their owner's duplicate TCT.

evidenced by three deeds of absolute sale in its favor dated September 10, November 18, and December 29, 1989 and that Filinvest was entitled to the registrations of such sales.
Issue: Whether or not the contracts to sell that the sellers executed in GHM’s favor covering the same lots sold to Filinvest are valid and enforceable
Held: The Court upholds the validity of the contracts between GHM and its sellers. The annotation of an adverse claim is intended to protect the claimant’s interest in the property. The notice is a warning to third parties dealing with the property that someone claims an interest in it or asserts a better right than the registered owner. Such notice constitutes, by operation of law, notice to the whole world. Here, although the notice of adverse claim pertained to only one lot and Filinvest wanted to acquire interest in some other lots under the same title, the notice served as warning to it that one of the owners was engaged in double selling.

Golden Haven Memorial Park Inc vs Filinvest Development Corporation
Facts:
An inherited land was divided into 13 lots and was distributed to theheirs. In the year 1989, Golden Memorial Haven agreed to purchase the Lot 1,2,6,12 payablein installments. On AUg 4, 1989, the caused to be annotated a Notice of Adverse Claim on the title. On Sept 20, 1989, the sellers of the 4 lots wrote to GHM that they were still working on the titling of the lots in their names and wanted to know if GHM was still interested in proceeding with their agreements. GHM replied in affirmative.
Sometime in AUg 1989, Filinvest Development Corporation applied for the transfer in its name the titles over Lots 2,4 and 5 but was denied by Register of Deeds. Upon inquiry, they learned that lot 8 now is registered under HDC, a sister company of GHM. FDC petitioned for HDC to surrender the duplicate title alleging that it bought Lots 1, 2, 6, and 12 of the property from their respective owners as