Title
Yu vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 109078
Decision Date
Dec 26, 1995
A property dispute involving a rescission suit, lis pendens annotation, and sale to third parties, where the Supreme Court upheld the binding effect of lis pendens on subsequent buyers and non-parties.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184068)

Background of the Case

On February 10, 1975, Rosario T. Alzul acquired four lots in Aurora Subdivision through B.E. San Diego, Inc. under a Contract to Sell for a total price of P237,660.00, with an initial down payment followed by monthly installments. Subsequently, Alzul assigned her rights under this contract to Wilson P. Yu via a Conditional Deed of Assignment. B.E. San Diego, Inc. canceled Alzul's original contract and issued a new contract in Yu's name.

Legal Proceedings

On August 25, 1980, Alzul filed a suit for rescission against Yu, asserting that he failed to pay the consideration. The trial court ruled in favor of Alzul, and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. During these proceedings, Alzul annotated a Notice of Lis Pendens on the original title of the lots on file with the Register of Deeds, putting future purchasers on alert about potential claims on the property.

Subsequent Transactions and Court Actions

In 1989, B.E. San Diego, Inc. declared the contract rescinded and sold the lots to Carlos and Sandra Ventura, who were unaware of the lis pendens annotation. The Venturas subsequently filed an action for quieting of title, which initially favored them, but the Court of Appeals later reversed this decision. The appellate court reinstated B.E. San Diego, Inc.'s title while recognizing the lis pendens annotation, affirming Alzul's rights.

Legal Issues Addressed

The central legal issue revolved around the binding nature and efficacy of the Notice of Lis Pendens. It was contended by both Yu and the Venturas that the notice, being inscribed solely on the original title held by the Register of Deeds rather than on the owner’s duplicate copy, did not provide adequate notice to them, thus precluding binding obligations as purchasers in good faith.

Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court clarified that the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the original title is sufficient to constitute constructive notice to subsequent purchasers. Actual notice is not necessary; therefore, purchasers are deemed alerted to any claims arising from litigation concerning the property. The court highlighted that the annotation serves as a public announcement about the property's litigation status, t

...continue reading

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