Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9965)
Applicable Law and Legal Background
The case hinges on the legal principles pertaining to the annotation of lis pendens, as dictated by the relevant rules of the Philippine legal system at the time. The pertinent provisions include Rule 7, Section 24 of the Rules of Court, and Section 79 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496).
Factual Background of the Dispute
On June 25, 1953, Pastor B. Constantino filed an amended complaint against the petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, alleging breach of contract related to an agency agreement for the development and sale of lots in a subdivision identified as "BBB Marulas Subdivision No. 3". The agreement purportedly involved a commission of 20% on gross sales and a 10% collection fee. Constantino claimed that despite his performance and contributions, the petitioners failed to compensate him correctly and eventually terminated the agency contract in bad faith.
The Lis Pendens Issue
While the civil case was ongoing, on April 5, 1955, Constantino filed a notice of lis pendens with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan to protect his claimed interests in the subject property. The Register of Deeds later sought the petitioners' acknowledgment for this annotation, but they refused. Nonetheless, the lis pendens was annotated without their consent when the petitioners sold portions of the property to a third party.
Legal Proceedings and Lower Court Rulings
The petitioners sought the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, contending that the primary nature of Constantino's lawsuit was for a money judgment and did not affect the title or possession of the property. The lower court agreed, concluding that the action did not relate to the title or possession of real property, thus ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, which was subsequently contested by Constantino.
Appellate Arguments
Constantino's appeal hinged on his assertion that the nature of his claim involved partnership interests rather than a mere agency relationship. He contended that his agreement with the petitioners granted him a participatory interest in the property, thereby justifying the annotation of the lis pendens. However, the court found that the language of Constantino's complaint clearly defined him as an agent, and no partnership claim was substantiated by the allegations in the complaint.
Court's Analysis and Conclusion
The appellate court held that Constantino's complaint did not assert title or possession claims that would validate a lis pendens annotation. The court emphasized that the lis pendens is appropriate only for actions affecting real property titles or possession. The existing complaint instead focuse
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-9965)
Background of the Case
- This case arises from a dispute involving a complaint filed by Pastor B. Constantino against Lucina Biglangawa and Lucia Espiritu.
- The complaint was lodged in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and it pertains to the legality of a lis pendens annotation related to a parcel of land.
- The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 2138 and revolves around an agency agreement concerning the development and sale of subdivision lots.
Parties Involved
- Petitioners/Appellees: Lucina Biglangawa and Lucia Espiritu, owners of a parcel of land in Polo, Bulacan.
- Respondent/Appellant: Pastor B. Constantino, who was appointed as the exclusive agent for the sale of the lots in question.
Factual Allegations
- On January 14, 1950, Lucina Biglangawa appointed Pastor B. Constantino as their exclusive agent for the development and sale of a property into subdivision lots.
- The contract stipulated that Constantino would receive a 20% commission on gross sales and a 10% fee on collections made.
- The agency agreement was formalized in a notarial document on March 3, 1950, which included a clause preventing revocation without Constantino's consent.
- Constantino advanced expenses for the property's development and sold a significant number of lots but faced issues with underpayment and termination of the agency contract by the defendants in October 1951.