G.R. No. L-9965 - Biglangawa vs. Constantino

On June 25, 1953, Pastor B. Constantino filed an amended complaint (Civil Case No. 2138) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against petitioners Lucina Biglangawa and Lucia Espiritu.
The complaint alleged that the petitioners had appointed Constantino as their exclusive agent to develop and market a parcel of land in Manila, Polo, Bulacan, described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5459.
Under the agency contract:

The agency contract, executed on January 14, 1950 (and confirmed on March 3, 1950 in a notarial document), included a stipulation that it could not be revoked without Constantino’s consent.

Constantino advanced the development expenses and succeeded in subdividing the property into 203 lots, selling more than half of these lots as of October 1951.
The contract required payments “from the first collections received from the purchasers in respect to each lot sold.”
Petitioners, however, contravened the agreement by paying Constantino only from 30% of the gross monthly collections.
Consequently, there remained a balance of commissions due to Constantino amounting to P48,899.20 by October 15, 1951, later adjusted and set for monthly installments.
Additional claims included:

The alleged wrongful termination of the agency, which deprived Constantino of further commissions on unsold lots.
A supplementary claim for attorney’s fees (P7,000.00), moral damages (P40,000.00), and exemplary damages (P30,000.00).

While Civil Case No. 2138 was pending, on April 5, 1955, Constantino filed a notice of lis pendens with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan regarding the property covered by TCT No. 5459.
The notice stated that the pending litigation involved rights, interests, and claims concerning the subdivision property, with reference to technical plans and the title itself.
On April 6, 1955, the Register of Deeds requested the petitioners to surrender their owner’s copy of the title for annotation, but they refused.
On May 17, 1955, notwithstanding the petitioners’ lack of consent or knowledge, the Register of Deeds annotated the lis pendens on both the petitioners’ title and the title issued later to Carmelita L. Santos upon registration of an absolute deed of sale.
Petitioners then filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan on June 11, 1955, seeking the cancellation of the lis pendens annotation.
The case proceedings included:

The lower court eventually ordered, on July 19, 1955, the cancellation of the lis pendens annotation on both the petitioners’ title and that of Carmelita L. Santos.
Constantino’s subsequent motion for reconsideration on August 8, 1955, was denied on September 30, 1955, prompting this appeal.

In his appeal, Constantino contended that the lower court erred by characterizing his pending action as one purely for a money judgment, which does not affect title or possession.
He argued that the arrangement with the petitioners had converted him into a partner having a 1/5 share in the property, transforming his claim into a suit for partition or adjustment of partnership interests.
He maintained that his lawsuit sought not only the recovery of unpaid commissions but also an accounting or partition of the property based on his alleged partnership interest.

Whether the annotation of the notice of lis pendens on the petitioners’ Transfer Certificate of Title was legal under the circumstances.
Whether Constantino’s claim, as pleaded in his amended complaint, amounts to a partnership interest or is merely a claim for payment of agency commissions and fees.
Whether the lower court erred in determining that Constantino’s pending action was purely for a money judgment and, hence, did not affect title or possession of the real property.