Title
Unicorp Fice Limited vs. Herma Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 240316
Decision Date
Apr 26, 2023
Land ownership dispute over Quezon City parcels involves multiple transfers, legal annotations, Supreme Court ruling favors Herma.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 80728)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Case Background
    • Unicorp Finance Limited (Unicorp) filed two consolidated Petitions for Review on certiorari under Rule 45 against Herma Corporation (Herma).
    • In G.R. No. 240316, Unicorp assailed:
      • The Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated November 24, 2016 in CA-G.R. CV No. 105736, which granted Herma’s appeal from the RTC Quezon City (RTC QC)-Branch 223 Decision dated October 2, 2014 in LRC Case No. R-QZN-13-01369-LR.
      • The CA Resolution dated June 21, 2018 denying Unicorp’s Motion for Reconsideration.
    • In G.R. No. 241752, Unicorp challenged:
      • The CA Decision dated July 12, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 155574 granting Herma’s Petition to enjoin the public sale of the subject properties.
      • The CA Resolution dated August 20, 2018 denying Unicorp’s Motion for Reconsideration.
  • Properties and Ownership History
    • The subject properties are three parcels of land with improvements located in Quezon City, originally covered by TCT Nos. RT-109555 (71118), RT-2665 (71119), and RT-2666 (71120), and owned by Spouses Thelma and Margarita Escalona.
    • Spouses Escalona sold these properties to TERP Construction Corporation (TERP) via two Deeds of Absolute Sale dated December 14, 1995, and one Deed of Sale dated March 19, 1996. New titles (TCT Nos. N-152880, N-246723, and N-246729) were issued in TERP’s name.
    • TERP conveyed the properties to the Margarita Asset Pool trustee (Planters Development Bank) as security for housing development projects, financing which involved issuance of Margarita Project Participation Certificates (MPPCs) guaranteed by Home Guaranty Corporation (HGC).
    • Upon failure of payment on the MPPCs, HGC settled guarantee claims and received the entire Margarita Asset Pool, including the properties, and was issued TCT Nos. N-247055, N-249442, and N-249441 with annotations of notices of levy and lis pendens related to claims filed by Unicorp and AsianBank in various RTC cases.
  • Previous Judicial Proceedings and Decisions
    • Unicorp filed consolidated Civil Cases Nos. Q-99-36998 and Q-99-37597 before RTC QC-Branch 226 against Escalona and TERP, among others, for enforcement of a foreign judgment and for annulment of a fraudulent sale.
    • AsianBank filed Civil Case No. 96-1758 before RTC Makati-Branch 141 against the Escalonas and associates, resulting in a compromise agreement.
    • RTC QC-Branch 226 upheld Unicorp’s claims and declared the sale between Spouses Escalona and TERP as simulated and ordered cancellation of title in favor of Spouses Escalona.
    • The CA reversed RTC Branch 226 in its June 27, 2011 Decision, upholding the validity of the sale between Escalona and TERP, enforcing a foreign judgment only against specific Escalona defendants, and rejecting Unicorp’s claims over the properties. The Supreme Court denied Unicorp’s petition for review, with finality in 2012.
    • HGC sold the subject properties to Herma, who registered new titles. Herma filed a petition with RTC QC-Branch 223 seeking cancellation of adverse annotations (notices of levy and lis pendens) on the HGC titles that had been carried over from previous titles.
    • RTC QC-Branch 223 granted cancellation of the notice of lis pendens but denied the cancellation of annotations of notices of levy, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to cancel these as they stemmed from another RTC branch’s orders.
    • Herma appealed to the CA, which reversed the RTC QC-Branch 223 ruling on November 24, 2016, and ordered cancellation of all disputed notices of levy and lis pendens annotations on the TCTs, recognizing Herma’s ownership and superiority of title.
    • While still pending Unicorp’s motion for reconsideration, Herma filed with the CA a petition to enjoin public auction sale of the properties, which was granted with issuance of a writ of injunction in 2018.
    • Unicorp’s motion for reconsideration from the CA’s 2018 decisions was denied.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction
    • Whether RTC QC-Branch 223, sitting as a land registration court, has jurisdiction to order cancellation of notices of levy on attachment annotated on the subject titles that were issued by RTC QC-Branch 226, a court of coordinate jurisdiction in different cases.
  • Validity and Priority of Annotations
    • Whether the notices of levy annotated on the subject titles constitute superior, immutable liens despite the finality of decisions recognizing ownership transfers.
    • Whether Herma’s ownership is subordinate to the prior annotations of levy and liens on the properties.
  • Issuance of Writ of Injunction
    • Whether the CA properly issued the writ of injunction to enjoin public sale of the subject properties to satisfy judgment obligations of Spouses Escalona.
  • Forum Shopping
    • Whether Herma committed forum shopping by filing a petition for injunction with application for TRO/WPI before the CA despite the pendency of the appeal on cancellation of annotations involving the same parties and subject matter before the same court.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms