Title
Capitol Subdivision, Inc. vs. Montelibano
Case
G.R. No. L-13389-90
Decision Date
Sep 30, 1960
Appeals over *lis pendens* annotations on lots sold to third parties; unregistered sales under Torrens System deemed ineffective against third parties; Supreme Court reversed lower court’s cancellation orders.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200169)

Key Dates

  • April 10, 1957: Petitioners filed a motion regarding Lot No. 21.
  • May 10, 1957: Trial court granted the petitioners' motion concerning Lot No. 21.
  • January 29, 1957: A deed of release of real estate mortgage was executed.
  • May 6, 1957: Petitioners filed a motion regarding Lot No. 28.
  • November 14, 1957: Court granted the petitioners' motion concerning Lot No. 28.
  • September 30, 1960: The decision was rendered.

Applicable Law

The case primarily concerns the application of the Torrens System of land registration, particularly the effect of unrecorded sales and the annotations of notices of lis pendens according to the provisions of Act No. 496, as amended, and the rules of civil procedure as they were in force at the time.

Factual Background

The petitioners alleged that they purchased Lot No. 21 and Lot No. 28 from the original owners, providing that both lots were previously mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank. The transactions for both lots involved payments made by the respective buyers, Corazon J. Lacson and Marcelino Lalantakan. The vendors executed deeds of sale, yet only the transfer pertaining to Lot No. 21 was registered prior to a notice of lis pendens being filed due to an ongoing civil case related to the property ownership.

Legal Dispute

The central issue revolves around the validity of the sales to Corazon J. Lacson and Marcelino Lalantakan, as well as the effect of the notices of lis pendens which were annotated on the titles after the sales took place. The petitioners sought to cancel the notices of lis pendens that had been filed by the oppositors against the titles of the contested lots, arguing that their buyers had acquired the properties before the notices were annotated.

Court's Reasoning

The court held that while unrecorded sales enforce rights between the parties involved, those rights are ineffectual against third parties unless registered. According to Philippine law, registration is the operative act that conveys ownership. Thus, as the sales to Lacson and Lalantakan were not registered in a timely manner, they did not affect the rights of the oppositors. The court affirmed that the annotation of notices of lis pendens would remain effective against the properties because t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.