G.R. No. 146262 - Heirs of Lopez, Sr. vs. Enriquez

The case originated as a petition for review seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision dated 29 November 2000, which had affirmed the Land Registration Authority’s (LRA) resolution of 21 May 1999.
The LRA had ruled, in Consulta No. 2879, that a notice of lis pendens based on a motion is not registrable.
The petition for review alleged that there was a manifest error and grave abuse of discretion by the LRA Administrator in denying registration of the notice of lis pendens.

Petitioners – Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. (including Eugenio Lopez, Jr., Manolo Lopez, Oscar Lopez, and Presentacion L. Psinakis)

Asserted that they were successors-in-interest to Eugenio Lopez, Sr.
Contended that the property had been sold to the late Eugenio Lopez, Sr. by the original applicants.

Respondents – Hon. Alfredo R. Enriquez, acting as Administrator of the LRA and Register of Deeds of Marikina City.

An application for registration of title was filed by Alfonso Sandoval and Roman Ozaeta, Jr.

Filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 152 under LRC Case No. 2858 (Land Registration Case No. N-18887).
The land registration court issued an order of general default and held hearings on the application.

On 31 May 1966, the court granted the registration application, and the decision became final and executory with a certificate of finality dated 8 March 1991.
The LRA subsequently issued decrees and corresponding Original Certificates of Title (OCT Nos. O-1603 and O-1604) in the names of Sandoval, Ozaeta, and their respective spouses.
Petitioners later intervened by filing:

A motion on 16 July 1997 in LRC No. N-18887 alleging that Sandoval and Ozaeta had sold the lots to the late Eugenio Lopez, Sr.
A subsequent motion on 25 November 1998 seeking to nullify the decrees and OCTs based on inconsistencies in dates and procedural defects.

The Register of Deeds of Marikina City denied petitioners’ application to annotate a notice of lis pendens on the OCTs on the ground that the application was deficient – lacking the original petition or complaint, among other issues.
Petitioners elevated the Register’s denial in consulta to the LRA on 14 January 1999, but the LRA maintained that a notice of lis pendens based solely on a motion is not registrable.

Notably, the decrees were signed by Administrator Enriquez on 20 October 1997 despite his taking office on 8 July 1998.
The issuance and signing chronology of the decrees raised questions regarding their validity.

Petitioners argued that the motion to declare the decrees void should confer upon them standing to file a notice of lis pendens.
The LRA explained that the inconsistencies were due to administrative oversight; however, they maintained that the petitioners were mere movants, not parties, in the land registration proceeding.

Whether the petitioners’ motion to declare the decrees void is a proper basis for filing a notice of lis pendens.

The contention revolves around whether the act of filing such a motion, in lieu of properly joining the registration proceedings, gives petitioners sufficient legal personality.

Whether petitioners may file the said motion even though the court’s order of general default in LRC No. N-18887 has not been lifted.

Emphasis is placed on the requirement that only parties with standing—those who have had the default order set aside—can file a notice of lis pendens under both the Rules of Court and PD 1529.