G.R. No. 123852 - Tongohan vs. Court of Appeals

On 26 October 1977, Pio Valencia mortgaged 289,158 square meters of land located at Sitio Balidbiran, Barangay Tandang Kutyo, Tanay, Rizal to UCPB Savings Bank, Tanay Branch.
Due to Valencia’s failure to pay the loan within the agreed period, the bank foreclosed the mortgaged lot, although it did not consolidate the title in its name.

Petitioner, Epitacio Tongohanan, alleged that Mr. Julius Salgado, the bank’s branch manager, made a verbal offer to sell the foreclosed lot to him for P1,000,000 and even facilitated the securing of a mining permit for the lot.
On 19 July 1991, petitioner authorized the bank to debit an initial amount of P250,000 from his account in connection with this alleged offer; however, the bank later informed him that it was no longer interested in selling the lot.

On 6 April 1992, petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance (Civil Case No. 405-M) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal, seeking enforcement of the alleged sale.
The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that no contract existed between the bank and petitioner since Mr. Salgado lacked the requisite authority to bind the bank, referencing Section 23 of the New Corporation Code.

On 23 June 1992, the bank’s president approved an offer of redemption made by the heirs of Pio Valencia, who then executed an extrajudicial settlement, divided the property among themselves, and secured new certificates of title.
On 14 October 1992, petitioner filed a second complaint (Civil Case No. 323-T) for damages, annulment or setting aside of the deed of redemption and reconveyance, and for the ordering of a document of sale in his favor. In support of his claim, petitioner caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the transfer certificates of title of the Valencia heirs.

The Valencia heirs filed a motion to discharge the notice of lis pendens, arguing that petitioner's earlier complaint, which was dismissed and is now final and executory, precluded his present cause of action.
On 14 October 1993, the RTC ruled in favor of the Valencia heirs, ordering the cancellation of the lis pendens on the titles of all involved heirs. The court held that such cancellation would not affect or prejudice petitioner’s money claims and was unrelated to the validity or integrity of the new titles issued in favor of the heirs.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.

On appeal, petitioner contended that his causes of action exceeded mere money claims, asserting an issue of ownership that warranted the retention of the lis pendens.
The appellate court found the petition without merit, noting that petitioner is merely a bidder and does not hold a status (such as creditor, co-owner, or co-heir) that would confer a right superior to that of the Valencia heirs.
The court affirmed the cancellation of the lis pendens as proper since it was not necessary to protect the interests of petitioner.

Whether the causes of action raised by petitioner, namely the annulment of the certificate of redemption, the annulment of the deed of adjudication and reconveyance, are purely money claims or whether they involve an issue of ownership that would justify enforcing a verbal offer.
Whether the cancellation of the lis pendens on the certificates of title of the Valencia heirs was proper and legally valid given the context of the claims presented by petitioner.