G.R. No. L-9965; August 29, 1960
Lucina Biglangawa and Lucia Espiritu, petitioners-appellees, vs. Pastor B. Constantino, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

On June 25, 1953, respondent Pastor B. Constantino filed an amended complaint (Civil Case No. 2138) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against petitioners Lucina Biglangawa and Lucia Espiritu. The complaint alleged that petitioners appointed Constantino as their exclusive agent to develop and sell their subdivision lots, promising him a 20% commission on gross sales and a 10% fee on collections. It further claimed that petitioners terminated the agency in bad faith, owed unpaid commissions, and breached a subsequent settlement agreement to pay the balance in installments based on monthly gross collections. The prayer sought money judgments for underpayments, the balance of commissions and fees, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. While this case was pending, Constantino filed a notice of lis pendens with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on April 5, 1955, concerning the property described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5459. The Register of Deeds annotated this notice on the title and on a new title issued to a buyer, Carmelita L. Santos. Petitioners filed a petition for cancellation of the lis pendens, which the lower court granted, holding the underlying action was purely for a money judgment that did not affect title or possession of the real property. Constantino appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the annotation of lis pendens based on Constantino’s complaint (Civil Case No. 2138) is legal.

RULING

No, the annotation of lis pendens is not legal. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order for its cancellation. The Court held that Constantino’s amended complaint did not constitute an action affecting title to or possession of real property, which is required for a valid lis pendens under Section 24, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and Section 79 of the Land Registration Act. The complaint explicitly alleged an agency relationship, not a partnership, where Constantino was to receive compensation in the form of commissions and fees. His claim for advances was treated as part of the indebtedness to be settled, not as a capital contribution. The prayer of the complaint sought only the recovery of specific monetary amounts, not liquidation, accounting, or partition of the property. Therefore, the pending action was purely a claim for a money judgment and could not serve as a basis for annotating a notice of lis pendens on the title.