G.R. No. 140945 ; May 16, 2005
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. JOSE EVANGELISTA, respondent.

FACTS

The National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a complaint for recovery of real property (Civil Case No. Q-91-10071) against Luisito Sarte, the City Treasurer, and the Register of Deeds. The property, originally owned by NHA but erroneously awarded and later sold at a tax auction to Sarte, was subdivided. While the case was pending, Sarte assigned Lot 1-A to Jose Evangelista on December 2, 1994, and a new title (TCT No. 122944) was issued in his name on December 21, 1994. NHA sought to implead Evangelista as a defendant in the existing case via a supplemental complaint, but the trial court denied the motion. NHA then filed a separate annulment case against Evangelista and others, which was dismissed due to the pendency of the first case.
The trial court subsequently rendered a decision in the original recovery case (Q-91-10071) in favor of NHA. The dispositive portion included a directive for the Register of Deeds to cancel all titles emanating from the auction sale, specifically naming Evangelista’s TCT No. 122944. Evangelista was never formally made a party to that case.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court’s decision in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071 is binding on respondent Jose Evangelista, who was not impleaded as a party defendant therein.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ annulment of the portion of the trial court’s decision affecting Evangelista’s title. The fundamental rule is that no man shall be affected by a proceeding to which he is a stranger; a judgment cannot bind a person who was not impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard. Jurisdiction over a person is acquired through voluntary appearance or proper service of summons. Here, Evangelista was never impleaded in NHA’s recovery suit. The trial court’s denial of NHA’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint meant Evangelista never became a party to that action.
The Court rejected NHA’s argument that the notice of lis pendens annotated on Evangelista’s title constituted constructive notice and bound him to the proceedings. A notice of lis pendens serves as a warning to prospective purchasers but does not confer jurisdiction over a person. Crucially, the lis pendens was annotated only on May 31, 1995, which was after Evangelista had already acquired his title on December 21, 1994. Therefore, it could not serve as constructive notice to him. The decision, rendered without jurisdiction over Evangelista and in violation of his right to due process, was void as to him. The proper recourse for NHA is to litigate its claims against Evangelista in the appropriate separate action.