G.R. No. 255934 - Du vs. Ortile

On June 25, 2008, Malayan Savings and Mortgage Bank (Malayan Bank) purchased a parcel of land at No. 2161 Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila, via foreclosure sale, which was evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 194618.
Malayan Bank subsequently entered into a MOA with petitioner Deanna Du and Primarosa B. Cuison wherein:

Malayan Bank agreed to sell the subject property for P20,500,000.00.
Petitioner Du paid a downpayment of P11,000,000.00.
Malayan Bank warranted that the subject property would be free from liens and encumbrances by August 15, 2008.

Malayan Bank incurred delays in fulfilling its undertaking to clear the property’s title from encumbrances.
Petitioner Du sent a letter on November 5, 2012, demanding that Malayan Bank perform its commitment.
On September 4, 2013, Malayan Bank informed Du that it could not remove the liens and encumbrances since an action for annulment of the foreclosure sale had been filed by Melissa Tuason-Principe—a claimant and heir of the former owner, Pacita Tuason-Principe.
Malayan Bank advised that it would return all amounts paid by petitioner Du, including accrued interest, pursuant to the MOA, and later expressed its intent to rescind the MOA—which was rejected by Du.

Petitioner Du filed a petition for annulment of judgment against Malayan Bank, George J. Martinez, and Melissa Tuason-Principe (annulment case) before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 141881.
Concurrently, petitioner Du filed a notice of lis pendens with the Register of Deeds of Manila to protect her interest in the subject property.
The Register of Deeds denied the registration of the notice on the ground that the registered owners were not impleaded in the annulment case.
Petitioner Du further filed an appeal (consulta) before the Land Registration Authority (LRA). The LRA Resolution dated June 6, 2018, issued by Ronald Ortile, denied her appeal, emphasizing that:

A notice of lis pendens cannot be registered when the underlying proceeding is for the recovery of money.
The registered owners must be impleaded as parties in the complaint.

Dissatisfied with the LRA Resolution, petitioner Du filed a petition for review via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The CA, in its Decision dated September 11, 2020, found the petition lack merit and reaffirmed that for a notice of lis pendens to be annotated the registered owner must be a party to the underlying litigation.
Petitioner Du’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated February 10, 2021.
The present petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of the CA decision.

Whether the CA erred in holding that, for the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the certificate of title, the registered owner must be impleaded as a party in the pending litigation.

Specifically, petitioner Du contended that nowhere in Section 76 of PD 1529 requires the registered owner to be a party.
Du argued that the notice merely serves as an extrajudicial warning regarding the pending litigation, as supported by precedents such as Voluntad v. Spouses Dizon.

Whether the CA erred in stating that there was no evidence substantiating that the registered owners (Pacita Tuason and Pacita T. Principe) were one and the same person and that Melissa Principe is the sole heir of the registered owner.

Petitioner Du asserted in her complaint that Melissa Principe admitted her status as the sole heir and that the registered owner’s identity was consistent.
Du cited Ver-Reyes v. Court of Appeals to support the position that annotation can be allowed even if the registered owner is not directly impleaded if the party is a successor-in-interest.