G.R. No. 117108 - Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals

Several Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT Nos. 262631, 273873, and 277938) were issued in the names of Valiant Realty and Development Corporation and Filipinas Textile Mills, Inc.
These properties were mortgaged in favor of Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC).
Upon the mortgagors’ failure to comply with the terms of the mortgage, EBC foreclosed the properties and conducted a public auction sale, after which the rights, interests, and participation in the properties were acquired by private respondent Oo Kian Tiok.

Immediately after acquiring the rights, Oo Kian Tiok took possession of the properties, except for a brief interruption when the petitioner, Daniel C. Villanueva—with armed accomplices—seized control by forcibly removing security guards and workers.
In response, Oo Kian Tiok filed Civil Case No. 92-2358 in the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, seeking recovery of possession and damages, along with reliefs for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining order.

As one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 92-2358, petitioner Villanueva filed a formal request with the Office of the Register of Deeds to annotate a notice of lis pendens on the back of the titles that affected the subject properties.
The Register of Deeds, however, refused registration on the grounds that:

The petitioner did not hold title or a right of possession over the subject properties;
Although he was an officer of Filipinas Textile Mills, Inc. (FTMI), the properties were registered under the name of FTMI and not in his personal name;
No board resolution was submitted to authorize him to act on behalf of the corporation.

Petitioner raised his contention that, as a stockholder holding 63% of FTMI (together with his siblings), he was asserting not mere possession but, in essence, ownership over the properties.

The petitioner escalated the matter by seeking a consulta with the Respondent Land Registration Authority under Section 117 of P.D. 1529.
The consulta was decided against him, and on appeal by the Respondent Court of Appeals, the decision sustaining the refusal to register the lis pendens was affirmed.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging the decision.

Whether the Register of Deeds may properly refuse to register the application for a notice of lis pendens on the basis that the petitioner does not personally own or possess the subject properties but claims only through his corporate affiliation.

Whether petitioner complied with the requirements set forth under the Land Registration Act and the Rules of Court for the annotation of a lis pendens.
Whether the petitioner’s assertion of an affirmative defense of ownership over the properties, as claimed in his answer, fulfills the necessary legal criteria under Section 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.

Whether the Respondent Land Registration Authority had the proper jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership over the contested properties.
Whether additional proof of ownership or right of possession should be required beyond the assertions made in the pleadings.