G.R. No. 169970 , January 20, 2009.
Protacio Vicente and Dominga Vicente, represented by Rondolf Vicente, Petitioners, vs. Delia Soledad Avera and Ronberto Valino, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City, Respondents.

FACTS

Jovencio Rebuquiao was the registered owner of the disputed property under TCT No. 34351. On October 1, 1987, Rebuquiao executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of petitioners, spouses Protacio and Dominga Vicente. Respondent Delia Soledad Avera alleges that on October 9, 1987, Jose Rebuquiao, via a Special Power of Attorney from Jovencio, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage in favor of Roberto Domingo (Avera’s then-spouse) and herself. In 1991, Avera filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (JDRC Case No. 1989-J) against Roberto Domingo, asserting exclusive ownership over the disputed property. A notice of lis pendens was inscribed on TCT No. 34351 on January 23, 1992. Petitioners possessed the property since 1997. On July 22, 1998, TCT No. 34351 was cancelled and TCT No. 14216 was issued to petitioners based on the 1987 deed of sale, with the notice of lis pendens carried over. In 1994, the RTC in the JDRC case declared the marriage void and ordered property acquired during cohabitation, including the disputed property, placed in Avera’s custody. After the decision became final, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued on June 13, 2001, targeting the property now under petitioners’ TCT No. 14216. Sheriff Ronberto Valino served a Notice to Vacate on petitioners. Petitioners filed a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for a TRO before the RTC of Mandaluyong City, which granted a preliminary injunction and later made it permanent, holding petitioners as registered owners not bound by the JDRC case writ. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding petitioners bound by the JDRC outcome due to the prior annotation of the lis pendens (1992) over their registration (1998).

ISSUE

Whether injunction lies in favor of the petitioners to prevent the respondents from interfering in the exercise of their rights over the disputed property.

RULING

Yes, injunction lies in favor of the petitioners. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the RTC decision making the preliminary injunction permanent. The Court held that petitioners, as registered owners and actual possessors under TCT No. 14216, have a clear legal right to the property, which is the best proof of ownership. Respondents’ attack on the validity of the 1987 deed of sale constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a Torrens title under Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529. Furthermore, the notice of lis pendens annotated on January 23, 1992, did not affect petitioners’ title. A notice of lis pendens only affects a transferee pendente lite who acquires the property after such annotation and stands in the shoes of the transferor, subjecting the title to the pending litigation’s outcome. Here, the lis pendens pertained to the JDRC case, an action for nullity of marriage between Avera and Domingo. The transferor, Rebuquiao, was not a party to that case, and his title was not subject to its results. Therefore, petitioners, as transferees from Rebuquiao, were not bound by the JDRC judgment. The implementation of the writ of execution against petitioners’ property would violate their clear legal right, warranting the grant of a permanent injunction.