G.R. No. 117108 November 5, 1997
DANIEL C. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY and OO KIAN TIOK, respondents.

FACTS

TCT Nos. 262631, 273873, and 277938 were issued in the name of Valiant Realty and Development Corporation and Filipinas Textile Mills, Inc. (FTMI). These properties were mortgaged to Equitable Banking Corp., which foreclosed and sold them at public auction after the mortgagors failed to comply with the mortgage terms. After the redemption period expired, the bank sold its rights to respondent Oo Kian Tiok. Oo Kian Tiok took possession, but petitioner Daniel C. Villanueva, together with armed men, forcibly took possession of the properties without a court order. This prompted Oo Kian Tiok to file Civil Case No. 92-2358 for Recovery of Possession and Damages against FTMI and Daniel Villanueva, among others. As a defendant in that case, Villanueva requested the Register of Deeds to annotate a Notice of Lis Pendens on the mentioned TCTs. The Register of Deeds denied the registration, stating that Villanueva was merely asserting possession, not title or right over the property, and that FTMI was no longer the owner. The denial was based on the grounds that Villanueva, while an officer of FTMI, did not submit a Board Resolution authorizing him to file the notice, and the titles were not in his personal name. Villanueva elevated the matter to the Land Registration Authority (LRA) via consulta, arguing he and his siblings owned 63% of FTMI’s beneficial shares and were asserting ownership, not just possession. The LRA ruled against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the LRA, sustaining the denial of registration on the ground that the lis pendens affected property not belonging to the defendant (Villanueva) personally.

ISSUE

Whether the notice of lis pendens requested by petitioner to be annotated on TCT Nos. 262631, 273873, and 277938 is registrable, or whether the Register of Deeds may refuse registration on the ground that the applicant (a defendant in the underlying case) does not have any title or right of possession over the subject properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition is meritorious. The notice of lis pendens is registrable. The Register of Deeds’ duty to annotate a notice of lis pendens is ministerial once the notice, on its face, shows it is filed in an action affecting title or possession of real property. The Register of Deeds is not authorized to look beyond the face of the notice or the pleadings to determine the validity of the parties’ claims or the applicant’s interest in the property. The underlying case, Civil Case No. 92-2358, is an action for recovery of possession, which is precisely one of the actions enumerated under Section 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court where a notice of lis pendens is proper. In his answer in that case, Villanueva claimed affirmative relief by asserting FTMI’s ownership, which directly affects the title and possession of the property. The fact that the property is registered in the name of a corporation (FTMI) of which Villanueva is a stockholder/officer, and not in his personal name, does not disqualify him from registering the notice. The notice serves as a warning to prospective purchasers about the litigation. The determination of the validity of the claims of ownership or possession is for the trial court in the main case, not for the Register of Deeds. Therefore, the Court of Appeals and the LRA erred in upholding the Register of Deeds’ denial of the annotation.