Title
MR Holdings, Ltd. vs. Bajar
Case
G.R. No. 153478
Decision Date
Oct 10, 2012
MR Holdings sought lis pendens on Manila Golf Club shares after a mine tailings disaster halted Marcopper's operations. SC ruled lis pendens applies only to real property, not personal assets like club shares, affirming lower courts' denial.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 110053)

Applicable Law and Procedures

This petition for review on certiorari is anchored in Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The cases in question also invoke the provisions relevant to mortgage agreements, borrowers’ obligations, and the doctrine of lis pendens, which pertains to ongoing litigation regarding property rights.

Background of the Dispute

Marcopper Mining Corporation, with financial backing from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), ceased operations due to environmental issues in 1996, leading to a default on its loan obligations. MR Holdings, as a subsidiary of Placer Dome, took over these obligations but faced challenges when sheriff executions were ordered against Marcopper's assets to satisfy mounting creditor claims, notably from Solidbank Corporation.

Mortgage and Foreclosure Proceedings

Marcopper had executed a chattel mortgage in favor of ADB as collateral against loans, which included membership shares in the Manila Golf Club. Due to defaults and subsequent legal actions, MR Holdings filed for extrajudicial foreclosure and acquired the shares through a public auction conducted by the Clerk of Court. Despite this, disputes arose regarding the validity of subsequent sales executed by sheriff Bajar under earlier court orders.

Initial Court Decisions

The RTC of Manila initially granted Solidbank initiatives for execution pending appeal against Marcopper’s assets, despite ongoing legal matters under CA-G.R. SP No. 44570 filed by Marcopper that challenged these unlawful executions. The Manila RTC eventually denied MR Holdings' motion to annotate a notice of lis pendens concerning the golf club shares, leading to the petition presently at bar.

Core Issues Addressed

Two principal issues emerged regarding whether the lis pendens rule applies in actions concerning personal properties and whether MR Holdings' request to annotate should be granted. The Court outlined that while lis pendens generally pertains to real property, there is no statutory provision recognizing the same for personal properties, such as club membership shares.

Judicial Interpretation of Lis Pendens

The Court reiterated that lis pendens serves public policy by providing a mechanism to notify potential buyers of a property involved in litigation, preventing the division of property rights due to sales occurring during the litigation process. The criteria established primarily involve actions impacting real property interests and not personal properties such as corporate memberships, highlighting the limitations of extending the application of lis pendens beyond its original intent.

Ruling on MR Holdings' Claims

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the lower courts did not err in denying MR Holdings' motion to annotate the membership shares as subject to lis pendens

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.