GR L 42956; (January, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-42956-57, January 12, 1988
A. DORONILA RESOURCES DEV. INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, A. Doronila Resources Development Inc., claimed ownership over a large parcel of land in San Mateo, Rizal, which was registered under TCT No. 344936 in the name of Blue Chips Projects, Inc. The petitioner had previously filed a civil action (Civil Case No. 12044) and secured the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the said title. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to annotate an affidavit of adverse claim on the same certificate of title, asserting that the property was part of a larger tract it had purchased. The Register of Deeds of Rizal denied the registration of the adverse claim, reasoning that the existing lis pendens already protected the petitioner’s interest, making the adverse claim redundant.
While the matter was elevated to the Land Registration Commission on consulta, the property was transferred to Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc., and a new title, TCT No. 425582, was issued. The new title contained an annotation stating the property was subject to the resolution of the pending consulta. The petitioner again sought to annotate an identical adverse claim on this new title. The Land Registration Commission, and later the Court of Appeals, sustained the Register of Deeds’ denial, holding that the lis pendens rendered the subsequent annotation of an adverse claim unnecessary.
ISSUE
Whether the prior annotation of a notice of lis pendens on a certificate of title precludes the subsequent registration of an adverse claim on the same or a successor title.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and granted the petition. The legal logic is that a notice of lis pendens and an adverse claim are distinct remedies under the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ) serving different purposes and offering different degrees of protection. A lis pendens is a notice that a property is involved in litigation; it is provisional and can be cancelled before the termination of the suit for various reasons not necessarily related to the merits of the claim. An adverse claim, under Section 110 of the Act, is a more permanent annotation that serves as a direct warning to all third persons of a claimed interest in the property. It cannot be cancelled summarily but only after a hearing and a proper disposition of the claim.
The Court held that the existence of a lis pendens does not legally bar the registration of an adverse claim. A claimant is not confined to a single remedy and may avail of both to protect an interest in registered land. The annotation on the successor title (TCT No. 425582), which merely stated the property was subject to a consulta resolution, was insufficient. Unlike an adverse claim, such an annotation does not effectively notify the public of a substantive claim of ownership or interest. Therefore, the Register of Deeds had a ministerial duty to annotate the petitioner’s adverse claim. The decisions of the Court of Appeals and the resolutions of the Land Registration Commission were annulled and set aside.