Facts:

The case involves Arturo C. Calubad as the petitioner and Billy M. Aceron and Oliver R. Soriano as respondents. The events leading to the case began in April 1992 when Aceron and Soriano entered into an unnotarized Deed of Conditional Sale for a parcel of land in Quezon City, valued at P1.6 million. The property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 15860, registered in the names of Francisco R. Soriano and Rosa R. Soriano, who had donated the property to their son, Oliver. The Deed of Conditional Sale stipulated that Oliver would reconstitute the title and transfer ownership to Aceron, who was allowed to take possession of the property upon paying P300,000.

In October 1992, the title was reconstituted, but when Aceron demanded the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale, Oliver informed him of the cancellation of their agreement. Consequently, on October 19, 1993, Aceron filed a complaint against Oliver in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, seeki...

Facts:

Transaction and Conditional Sale

• In April 1992, Billy M. Aceron and Oliver R. Soriano entered into an unnotarized Deed of Conditional Sale over a 760‑square meter parcel in Quezon City, for a consideration of ₱1.6 million.
• The subject property was originally titled in the name of spouses Francisco and Rosa R. Soriano, who later donated the property to their son, Oliver, but had not yet reconstituted the title in his name.
• The conditional sale provided that Oliver must reconstitute the title and transfer ownership to Aceron, while Aceron could take possession upon paying ₱300,000.

Dispute Arising from Contractual Breach and Litigation

• In October 1992, after the title was reconstituted, Aceron demanded Oliver execute a Deed of Absolute Sale; however, Oliver announced his intention to cancel the conditional sale due to Aceron’s failure to pay the full contract price.
• Aceron filed a Complaint on October 19, 1993 before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 96, seeking enforcement of the sale and damages.
• Oliver defended by asserting that the cancellation was justified because of Aceron’s non-payment of the balance.

Court Proceedings and Judicial Decisions

• The RTC rendered a decision on December 26, 1996, favoring Aceron by ordering Oliver to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale and awarding ₱25,000.00 in attorney’s fees.
• Aceron’s subsequent appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals on February 18, 2002, affirming the RTC decision, which became final and executory on August 5, 2003.
• On July 4, 2003, following the trial court’s writ of execution, Oliver had the title reissued (TCT No. N-253373) in his name.
• Events progressed with Oliver notifying Aceron in November 2003 of the notarial rescission of the conditional sale and demanding possession of the property, while on December 17, 2003, Oliver secured a loan of ₱1.6 million from petitioner Calubad by mortgaging the property.
• Aceron moved for execution in January 2004 with the trial court granting his motion in a March 5, 2004 Order, leading Aceron to deposit ₱970,000 on April 1, 2004, as part of satisfying the balance.
• Oliver, however, failed to deliver the title as ordered, prompting further motions by Aceron to have the title transferred to him free of encumbrances.
• On October 3, 2004, Aceron filed an omnibus motion requesting, among other things, the delivery of the title, the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in his favor, and the divestiture of Oliver’s ownership.
• The trial court granted Aceron’s omnibus motion on December 13, 2004, which became final and executory on January 20, 2005.

Petitioner Calubad’s Involvement and Subsequent Petition

• Petitioner Calubad, who had provided a loan secured by the mortgaged property, was not originally a party to Civil Case No. Q‑93‑18011.
• Calubad later filed a petition under Rule 65 before the appellate court (CA‑G.R. SP No. 88415), challenging the RTC’s Resolution dated December 13, 2004, on the ground of his non-participation and lack of proper notice.
• The appellate court dismissed Calubad’s petition on March 14, 2006, and reaffirmed the dismissal in a March 27, 2007 Resolution.
• On August 23, 2007, Calubad filed a Petition for Annulment of Final Resolution under Rule 47, seeking to annul the RTC decision, which was subsequently dismissed on September 19, 2007.
• Calubad’s petition for reconsideration was denied in the May 29, 2009 Resolution, prompting him to file the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Validity of Actions by the Appellate Court

• Whether the appellate court had the jurisdiction to cancel the annotations of the real estate mortgage and certificate of sale favoring Calubad on TCT No. N-253373.
• Whether the appellate court was empowered to declare the real estate mortgage and subsequent foreclosure sale null and void.
• Whether it was proper to declare Calubad a mortgagee in bad faith, given that he was not a party to Civil Case No. Q‑93‑18011 and there was no notice of lis pendens on the relevant titles.

Appropriateness of Dismissing the Petition for Annulment

• Whether the dismissal of the petition for annulment was correct in finding that Calubad had other available remedies aside from a petition for annulment under Rule 47.
• Whether Calubad’s non-participation, delayed receipt of case materials (e.g., Aceron’s Omnibus Motion), and his subsequent legal actions justify or invalidate his claims regarding his alleged interest in the subject property.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)