VOL.

458,MAY16,2005 469
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista
*
G.R.No.140945.May16,2005.

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. JOSE

EVANGELISTA,respondent.

Actions Judgments Annulment of Judgments Words and Phrases

Annulmentofjudgmentisarecourseequitableincharacter,allowedonlyin
exceptionalcasesaswherethereisnoavailableorotheradequateremedy
Lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim, and in either
case, the judgment or final order and resolution are void.Annulment of
judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional
casesaswherethereisnoavailableorotheradequateremedy.Jurisprudence
and Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court lay down the grounds upon
which an action for annulment of judgment may be brought, i.e., (1)
extrinsicfraud,and(2)lackofjurisdictionordenialofdueprocess.Lackof
jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defending party or over the subject matter of the claim, and in either case,
the judgment or final order and resolution are void. A trial court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by his voluntary
appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of
summons.
Same Same Same Due Process It is basic that no man shall be
affectedbyanyproceedingtowhichheisastranger,andstrangerstoacase
arenotboundbyjudgmentrenderedbythecourtItwillbe

_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.

470

470 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista
the height of inequity to allow a persons title to be nullified without being
given the opportunity to present any evidence in support of his ostensible
ownership of the property.In this case, it is undisputed that respondent
was never made a party to Civil Case No. Q9110071. It is basic that no
man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and
strangerstoacasearenotboundbyjudgmentrenderedbythecourt.Yet,the
assailed paragraph 3 of the trial courts decision decreed that (A)ny
transfers, assignment, sale or mortgage of whatever nature of the parcel of
landsubjectofthiscasemadebydefendantLuisitoSarteorhis/heragentsor
assignsbeforeorduringthependencyoftheinstantcaseareherebydeclared
null and void, together with any transfer certificates of title issued in
connection with the aforesaid transactions by the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City who is likewise ordered to cancel or cause the cancellation of
suchTCTs.Respondentisadverselyaffectedbysuchjudgment,ashewas
the subsequent purchaser of the subject property from Sarte, and title was
already transferred to him. It will be the height of inequity to allow
respondents title to be nullified without being given the opportunity to
presentanyevidenceinsupportofhisostensibleownershipoftheproperty.
Much more, it is tantamount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee
that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.
Clearly, the trial courts judgment is void insofar as paragraph 3 of its
dispositiveportionisconcerned.
SameLandTitlesLisPendensWhileanoticeoflispendensservesas
a warning to a prospective purchaser or encumbrancer that the particular
propertyisinlitigationthatheshouldkeephishandsoffthesame,unless
heintendstogambleontheresultsofthelitigationsuchconstructivenotice
operates as such from the date of the registration of the notice of lis
pendens.Petitioner filed Civil Case No. Q9110071 way back in 1991.
TCT Nos. 108070 and 108071 were issued in Sartes name on May 13,
1994 TCT No. 122944 was issued in respondents name on December 21,
1994. Petitioner had enough opportunity to have its adverse claim and a
noticeoflispendensannotatedonSartestitlebeforethelatterassignedthe
property to Evangelista, but it did not do so. The adverse claim was
annotated only on May 4, 1995 and the notice of lispendens, on May 31,
1995. While a notice of lispendens serves as a warning to a prospective
purchaser or incumbrancer that the particular property is in litigation and
thatheshouldkeephishandsoffthesame,

471

VOL.458,MAY16,2005 471

NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista
unless he intends to gamble on the results of the litigation, such
constructive notice operates as such from the date of the registration of the
notice of lis pendens, which in this case, was, at the earliest, on May 4,
1995.Thiswaslongaftertitletothepropertywastransferredtorespondent.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
OfficeoftheGovernmentCorporateCounselforpetitioner.
RRMendez&Associatesforrespondent.

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

Apersonwhowasnotimpleadedinthecomplaintcannotbebound
bythedecisionrenderedtherein,fornomanshallbeaffectedbya
1
proceedinginwhichheisastranger. Thisreferstothepetitionfor
review on certiorari2 filed by the National Housing Authority
assailingthedecision oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SP
No. 51646, granting respondents petition for annulment of
judgment.Thedispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisgranted.TheassailedpartofparagraphNo.
3ofthedispositiveportionofthedecisiondatedNovember29,1995ofthe
RegionalTrialCourt,Br.CIII,QuezonCityinCivilCaseNo.Q9110071
isherebydeclaredvoid,nonbindingandinapplicableinsofaraspetitioners
TCTNo.122944isconcerned.

_______________

1HeirsofAntonioPaelvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.133547,February10,2000,

325SCRA341,366Arcelonavs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.102900,October2,1997,
280SCRA20,40.
2PennedbyAssociateJusticeRubenT.Reyes,withAssociateJusticesJainalD.

RasulandEloyR.Bello,Jr.,concurring.

472

472 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

LetacopyhereofbefurnishedtheRegisterofDeedsofQuezonCityforthe
properannotation.Nopronouncementastocosts.
3
SOORDERED.

Petitioner now comes before the Court with the following

assignmentoferrorsallegedlycommittedbytheCA:

I
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHAT
THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT IS NOT BINDING ON
HEREIN RESPONDENT JOSE EVANGELISTA BECAUSE THE
LOWER COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER HIS
PERSON.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT LIKEWISE ERRED IN ANNULLING

THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT ON THE GROUND OF
LACK OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE RESPONDENT JOSE
EVANGELISTA WAS NOT IMPLEADED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT
4
INPETITIONERSACTIONFORRECOVERYOFTITLE.

TheassaileddecisionoftheCAoriginatedfromacivilcasefiledby
petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch
CIII)forrecoveryofrealproperty,docketedasCivilCaseNo.Q91
5
10071. Saidcaseinvolvesarealpropertymeasuring915.50square
meters and located in V. Luna Road, Quezon City, originally
awardedin1968bythePeoplesHomesiteandHousingCorporation
(petitioners predecessor) to a certain Adela Salindon. After the
death of Salindon, her heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement
where the property was transferred to Arsenio Florendo, Jr.,
Milagros Florendo, Beatriz Florendo and Eloisa Florendo
Kulphongpatana. However, in a decision in G.R. No. L60544,
entitled

_______________

3CARollo,pp.99100.

4Rollo,p.15.

5CARollo,pp.2329.

473

VOL.458,MAY16,2005 473
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

Arsenio Florendo, Jr., et al. vs. Hon. Perpetuo D. Coloma,

PresidingJudgeofBranch VII, City Court of Quezon City,etal.,
rendered by the Court on May 19, 1984, the award in favor of
Salindonwasnullifiedandsetasideforhavingbeenissuedinexcess
ofjurisdictionandwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,andpetitionerwas
declaredtheowneroftheproperty.
Despite said decision, the property was auctioned off by the
Quezon City Treasurers Office on April 23, 1986, for unpaid real
property taxes by the Florendos. The highest bidder was Luisito
Sarte. Because the Register of Deeds refused to register the final
deed of sale issued by the City Treasurer, Sarte filed a petition for
issuanceoftitleandconfirmationofsale,whichwasgrantedbythe
RegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity(Branch84).Consequently,the
Register of Deeds issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
28182inthenameofSarte,whodividedthepropertyintoLot1A,
measuring 570.50 square meters and covered by TCT No. 108070,
andLot1B,measuring345squaremetersandcoveredbyTCTNo.
6
108071.
It was in 1991 that petitioner filed Civil Case No. Q9110071
withSarte,theCityTreasurerofQuezonCityandtheQuezonCity
RegisterofDeeds,asdefendants.Whilethecasewaspending,Sarte
executed in favor of respondent Jose Evangelista, a7 Deed of
Assignment dated December 2, 1994, covering Lot 1A. TCT No.
108070wascancelledandTCTNo.122944wasissuedinthename
ofrespondentonDecember21,1994.Subsequently,theRegisterof
DeedsannotatedonTCTNo.122944anAffidavitofAdverseClaim
ofpetitioner,towit:

EntryNo.7159/TNo.122944:AFFIDAVITOFADVERSECLAIM
Executed under oath by Manuel V. Fernandez (in behalf of NHA),
adverseclaimant,claimingamongothersthatNHAhasthe

_______________

6CARollo,pp.3033.

7Id.,pp.3435.

474

474 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

right of the ownership of the property being the subject of controversy in

Civil Case No. Q9110071, entitled National Housing Authority vs.
LuisitoSarte,etal.,nowpendingbeforeRTC,Br.103,Q.C.,Doc.No.76,
page16,Bk.I,s.of1995ofNot.Pub.ofQ.C.BelsieCailipanSy.
DateoftheinstrumentMay4,1995 8
DateoftheinscriptionMay4,1995.

andNoticeofLisPendens,towit:

EntryNo.1367/TNo.122944:NOTICEOFLISPENDENS
ByvirtueofanoticeoflispendenspresentedandfiledbyOscarI.Garcia
& Virgilio C. Abejo, notice is hereby given that a case has been pending
RTC, Q.C. in Civil Case No. Q9523940 entitled National Housing
Authority,plaintiff,vs.LuistioSarte,JoseEvangelista,NorthernStarAgri
Business Corporation, BPI Agricultural Development Bank & the Register
of Deeds of Quezon City, defendants, plaintiff praying for Annulment of
the Deed of Assignment, Deed of Absolute Sale, Real Estate Mortgage,
CancellationofTCTNos.122944and126639&damages.
 DateoftheInstrumentMay24,19959
DateoftheInscriptionMay31,1995

On May 1, 1995, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file

supplemental complaint in Civil Case No. Q9110071, seeking to
include respondent Evangelista, Northern Star AgriBusiness
CorporationandBPIAgriculturalDevelopmentBankasdefendants.
Theproposedadditionaldefendantswerethesubsequentpurchasers
10
ofLots1Aand1B. Thetrialcourt,however,deniedthemotionin
11
itsOrderdatedMay17,1995.
Thus,petitioner,onMay31,1995,filedbeforetheRegionalTrial
CourtofQuezonCity(Branch82)acomplaintforAn

_______________

8Id.,p.37.

9CARollo,p.37.

10Id.,pp.3840.

11Id.,p.41.

475

VOL.458,MAY16,2005 475
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

nulmentofDeedofAssignment,DeedofAbsoluteSale,RealEstate
Mortgage, Cancellation of TCT Nos. 122944 and 126639, and
Damages,againstSarte,respondentEvangelista,NorthernStarAgri
BusinessCorporation,BPIAgriculturalDevelopmentBankandthe
RegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity,docketedasCivilCaseNo.Q95
12
23940. Butthetrialcourtdismissedwithoutprejudicesaidcaseon
October23,1995,onthegroundofthependencyofCivilCaseNo.
13
Q9110071.
In a decision dated November 29, 1995, the trial court, in Civil
Case No. Q9110071, rendered its decision in favor of petitioner,
withthefollowingdispositiveportion:

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff

NationalHousingAuthorityasfollows:

1. TheauctionsaleconductedbytheQuezonCityTreasurerin1986of
the parcel of land consisting of 915.50 sq. m. subject of this case
previouslycoveredbyTCTNo.138007oftheRegisterofDeedsof
Quezon City issued in the name of Adela Salindon and wherein
defendantLuisitoSartewastheauctionbuyerandTCTNo.239729
in the name of Arsenio Florendo, Milagros Florendo, Beatriz
FlorendoandEloisaF.Kulphongpatanaisherebydeclarednulland
voidabinitio
 TCT No. 28182 subsequently issued in the name of defendant
2. Luisito Sarte by the Quezon City Registry of Deeds is hereby
declared null and void ab initio and the herein defendant Quezon
CityRegisterofDeedsisherebyorderedtocancelsaidTCT28182
inthenameofLuisitoSarte
3. Anytransfers,assignment,saleormortgageofwhatevernature
of the parcel of land subject of this case made by defendant
Luisito Sarte or his/her agents or assigns before or during the
pendencyoftheinstantcaseareherebydeclarednullandvoid,
together with any transfer certificates of title issued in
connection with the aforesaid transactions by the Register of
DeedsofQuezonCitywhoislikewiseorderedtocancelorcause
thecancellationofsuchTCTs

_______________

12Id.,pp.4249.

13Id.,pp.5152.

476

476 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

4. ThedefendantRegisterofDeedsofQuezonCityisherebyordered
to issue a new transfer certificate of title over the entire parcel of
land (915.50 sq. m.) subject of this case in favor of the National
HousingAuthoritybywayofsatisfyingtheSupremeCourtinG.R.
No.50544promulgatedonMay1984
5. The NHA is hereby required and authorized to put in place on the
property at bar a notice, readable, bold, and stable, sufficiently
signifyingtheessenceofthiscourtsdecisionsothatnopersonmay
errastotherealownershipoftheinstantparceloflandandtofence
thesametoprevententryofsquattersorotherillegalintruders.

Thecourtfurtherrendersjudgmentasfollows:

1. Nopronouncementastoattorneysfees,costsandotherdamagesas
fundamentally the main responsible character here are the public
officerssuedintheirofficialcapacity.
2. ThecomplaintininterventionbyTeresitaVasquezisheldpremature
inviewofthedispositionhereinmadeinfavorofNHAwhichcan
only fully act with regard to the claim of said intervenor after this
decision becomes final. Moreover, insofar as and to the extent in
whichintervenorVasquezhasjoinedtheNHAinthecaseatbench,
her assertions and prayers have already been adjudged in this
decisioninfavoroftheplaintiffNationalHousingAuthority.
14
SOORDERED. (Emphasissupplied)
 14
SOORDERED. (Emphasissupplied)

Respondent then filed with the CA a petition for annulment of the

trial courts judgment, particularly paragraph 3 of the dispositive
portion, referring to the nullity of any transfer, assignment, sale or
mortgagemadebySarte.Inhispetition,respondentallegedextrinsic
fraudasground.Accordingtorespondent,sincehewasnotaparty
to Civil Case No. Q9110071, he was prevented from ventilating
hiscause,rightorinterestovertheproperty,andthejudgmentwas
not binding on15him, as the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
overhisperson.

_______________

14CARollo,pp.2021.

15Id.,pp.910.

477

VOL.458,MAY16,2005 477
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

TheCAgrantedthepetitionanddeclarednullandvoidparagraph3
of the dispositive portion of the trial courts16
decision insofar as
petitioners title to the property is concerned. The CA found that
respondent was not a party to Civil Case No. Q9110071 and the
trialcourtdidnotacquireanyjurisdictionoverhisperson.TheCA
also ruled that the judgment violated respondents17right against
deprivationofthepropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA,
petitionertookthepresentrecourse.
Petitionerinsiststhatitshouldnotbefaultedforthetrialcourts
denialofitsmotiontoincluderespondentasdefendantinCivilCase
No.Q9110071. Petitioner also claims that the auction sale of the
property by the City Treasurer of Quezon City is void ab initio
becauseitwasneversupposedtobeincludedintheauctionsaleas
petitioner, which has been declared by the Court in G.R. No. L
60544 as the owner of the property, is exempt from payment of
taxes. Hence, Sarte cannot claim any right over the same and
respondent,havingboughtitfromSarte,doesnotacquireanybetter
rightthereto.Petitioneralsoallegesthatrespondentisnotabuyerin
good faith because the 18
latter was aware of the pending litigation
involvingtheproperty.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in
annullingparagraph3ofthetrialcourtsdecisionongroundsoflack
ofjurisdictionandlackofdueprocessoflaw.
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character,
allowedonlyinexceptionalcasesaswherethereisnoavailableor
19
otheradequateremedy. JurisprudenceandSection2,Rule47ofthe
 19
otheradequateremedy. JurisprudenceandSection2,Rule47ofthe
RulesofCourtlaydownthegrounds

_______________

16Id.,pp.99100.

17Id.,pp.9699.

18Rollo,pp.1620.

19Espinosavs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.128686, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 96,

103.

478

478 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

upon which an action for annulment of judgment may be brought,

i.e.,(1)extrinsicfraud,and(2)lackofjurisdictionordenialofdue
20
process.
Lackofjurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the
personofthedefendingpartyoroverthesubjectmatteroftheclaim,
and in
21
either case, the judgment or final order and resolution are
void. A trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant either by his voluntary appearance in 22court and his
submissiontoitsauthorityorbyserviceofsummons.
In this case, it is undisputed that respondent was never made a
partytoCivilCaseNo.Q9110071.Itisbasicthatnomanshallbe
affectedbyanyproceedingtowhichheisastranger,andstrangersto
23
a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court. Yet, the
assailedparagraph3ofthetrialcourtsdecisiondecreedthat(A)ny
transfers, assignment, sale or mortgage of whatever nature of the
parceloflandsubjectofthiscasemadebydefendantLuisitoSarte
or his/her agents or assigns before or during the pendency of the
instant case are hereby declared null and void, together with any
transfer certificates of title issued in connection with the aforesaid
transactions by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City who is
likewiseorderedtocancelorcausethecancellationofsuchTCTs.
Respondent is adversely affected by such judgment, as he was the
subsequent purchaser of the subject property from Sarte, and title
was already transferred to him. It will be the height of inequity to
allow respondents title to be nullified without being given the
opportunity to present any evidence in support of his ostensible
ownershipofthe

_______________

20Pinlacvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.91486,January19,2001,249SCRA635,

650.
 21Capacetevs.Baroro,G.R.No.154184,July8,2003,405SCRA457,463.

22Anchetavs.Ancheta,G.R.No.145370,March4,2004,424SCRA725,735.

23HeirsofAntonioPaelcase,supra,note1.

479

VOL.458,MAY16,2005 479
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

property. Much more, it is tantamount to a violation of the

constitutionalguaranteethatnopersonshallbedeprivedofproperty
24
without due process of law. Clearly, the trial courts judgment is
voidinsofarasparagraph3ofitsdispositiveportionisconcerned.
Petitioner argues that it should not bear the consequence of the
trialcourtsdenialofitsmotiontoincluderespondentasdefendant
inCivilCaseNo.Q9110071.True,itwasnotpetitionersfaultthat
respondentwasnotmadeapartytothecase.Butlikewise,itwasnot
respondents fault that he was not given the opportunity to present
his side of the story. Whatever prompted the trial court to deny
petitionersmotiontoincluderespondentasdefendantisnotforthe
Courttoreasonwhy.Petitionercouldhavebroughtthetrialcourts
denial to the CA on certiorari but it did not. Instead, it filed Civil
CaseNo.Q9523940forAnnulmentofDeedofAssignment,Deed
ofAbsoluteSale,RealEstateMortgage,CancellationofTCTNos.
122944and126639,andDamages,againsthereinrespondentSarte
and others. Unfortunately for petitioner, this was dismissed by the
RegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity(Branch82)onthegroundof
litis pendentia. Be that as it may, the undeniable fact remains
respondent is not a party to Civil Case No. Q9110071, and
paragraph 3, or any portion of the trial courts judgment for that
matter,cannotbebindingonhim.
Petitioneralsoclaimsthatrespondentisnotabuyeringoodfaith,
citingasbadgeofknowledge,respondentsallegedawarenessofthe
pendinglawsuitovertheproperty.Petitionerclaimsthatrespondent
had admitted that before TCT No. 122944 was issued to the latter,
the notice of lis pendens was already annotated at the back of the25
title. Respondent, however, denied having made such admission.
Thereismerittorespondentsdenial.

_______________

24ArticleIII,Section1,1986Constitution.

25Rollo,p.80.

480

480 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

Basedonpetitionersclaim,onewouldassumethatthenoticeoflis
pendens was annotated on the title preceding TCT No. 122944,
which is TCT No. 108070 in the name of Sarte. However, there is
nothinginTCTNo.108070whichshowsanyannotationofanotice
oflispendensoradverseclaim.ThelastentriesonTCTNo.108070
were Entry No. 4172 made on May 24, 1994,
26
canceling Entry No.
674,whichisanannotationofamortgage, andaregistrationofthe
DeedofAssignmentbetweenSarteandrespondent,whichwasmade
27
onDecember21,1994. Itwasalreadyafterrespondentacquiredthe
property and after TCT No. 122944 was issued in his name that
petitioners adverse claim (Entry No. 7159)
28
and a notice of lis
pendens(EntryNo.1367)wereannotated. Itshouldalsobepointed
out that the notice of lis pendens annotated on the back of
respondentstitlereferstoCivilCaseNo.Q9523940,andnotCivil
Case No. Q9110071. It was in petitioners Affidavit of Adverse
ClaimthatCivilCaseNo.Q9110071wasindicated.
Torepeat,asrecordsshow,atthetimethenoticeoflis pendens
and adverse claim was annotated, the Deed of Assignment has
already been entered into by respondent and Sarte, and TCT No.
122944 was already issued in respondents name on December 21,
1994.
Petitioner filed Civil Case No. Q9110071 way back in 1991.
TCTNos.108070and108071wereissuedinSartesnameonMay
29
13, 1994 TCT No. 30
122944 was issued in respondents name on
December21,1994. Petitionerhadenoughopportunitytohaveits
adverseclaimandanoticeoflispendensannotatedonSartestitle
beforethelatterassignedthepropertytoEvangelista,butitdidnot
do so. The adverse claim was annotated only on May 4, 1995 and
the

_______________

26CARollo,pp.3031.

27Id.,p.31.

28Id.,p.37.

29CARollo,pp.3033.

30CARollo,p.36.

481

VOL.458,MAY16,2005 481
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista
31
notice of lis pendens, on May 31, 1995. While a notice of lis
pendens serves as a warning to a prospective purchaser or
incumbrancerthattheparticularpropertyisinlitigationandthathe
shouldkeephishandsoffthesame,unlessheintendstogambleon
the results of the litigation, such constructive notice operates as 32
suchfromthedateoftheregistrationofthenoticeoflispendens,
which in this case, was, at the earliest, on May 4, 1995. This was
longaftertitletothepropertywastransferredtorespondent.
Note also must be made that respondent was not furnished by
petitioner 33of a copy of its motion for leave to file supplemental
complaint. Thus, it cannot be said that respondent knew of the
existence of Civil Case No. Q9110071. Moreover, the filing of
CivilCaseNo.Q9523940againstrespondentandotherdefendants
wasmadeonlyonMay31,1995,andatthatpoint,TCTNo.122944
wasalreadyissuedinrespondentsname.
Lest it be misunderstood, the Court is not declaring that
respondent is a purchaser of the property in good faith. This is an
issuethatcannotbedealtwithbytheCourtinthisforum,astheonly
issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in annulling
paragraph 3 of the trial courts decision on grounds of lack of
jurisdiction and lack of due process of law. Whether or not
respondent is a purchaser in good faith is an issue which is a
differentmatteraltogetherthatmustbethreshedoutinafullblown
trialforthatpurposeinanappropriatecaseandintheproperforum.
Also, CAG.R. CV No. 52466, which is the appeal from the trial
courtsdecisioninCivilCaseNo.Q9110071,ispendingbeforethe
CA, and it would be premature and unwarranted for the Court to
render

_______________

31Id.,p.37.

32 Section 52, Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529) San Lorenzo
Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 124242, January 21, 2005,
449SCRA99.
33CARollo,p.40.

482

482 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
NationalHousingAuthorityvs.Evangelista

anyresolutionthatwouldunnecessarilyinterferewiththeappellate
proceedings.
Insofar as this petition is concerned, what the Court declares is
thatthenoticeoflispendenscannotserveasconstructivenoticeto
respondent for having been annotated after the transfer of the
propertytohimandthatheisentitledtohaveparagraph3ofthetrial
courtsdecisionannulled.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionforreviewoncertiorariisDENIED
for lack of merit and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the
 CourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.51646areherebyAFFIRMED.
Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga and ChicoNazario,

JJ.,concur.

Petitiondenied,assaileddecisionandresolutionaffirmed.

Notes.Generallyacceptedistheprinciplethatnomanshallbe
affectedbyanyproceedingtowhichheisastranger,andstrangersto
acasearenotboundbyjudgmentrenderedbythecourt.(Matuguina
IntegratedWoodProducts,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,263SCRA490
[1996])
A judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the
action.Adecisionofacourtcannotoperatetodivesttherightsofa
person who is not a party to the case. (Maccay vs. Nobela, 454
SCRA504[2005])

o0o

483

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.