CANDIDO FRANCISCO, petitioner,

vs.
HEIRS OF MARIA MARASIGAN, namely, Teofilo, Isabel, Maximina, Anicia,
and Francisco, all surnamed Marasigan, petitioners,
vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and MARIA
MARRON, respondents.

G.R. No. L-69303 July 23, 1987

Shiela C. Alemania

FACTS:

On April 24, 1975, a civil case entitled “Maria Marron v. Felicisimo Bazar
and Fe S. Bazar” was filed before the then CFI of Manila, Br. XIII. This action
sought to compel defendants Bazar to execute a registrable Deed of Absolute
Sale of Lot No. 2-A covered by T.C.T No. 100612 in favor of Maria Marron.
On January 27, 1976, while the above case was still pending, private
respondent Marron caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back
of T.C.T. No. 100612.

On February 24, 1976, judgment was rendered in favor of Maria Marron

and the judgment having become final and executory, she filed a motion for
execution which was granted. To this, a writ of execution was granted but the
Bazars refused to surrender their title and to execute the required deed of sale.
On November 29, 1978, the lower court ordered the Clerk of Court to execute
the deed of sale. But upon presentation of the said deed to the Register of
Deeds of Manila for registration, the Deputy Clerk of Court was advised to
secure a court order in order to cancel the new title issued in favor of one
Maria Marasigan. This is due to a prior deed of absolute sale in favor of such
person executed on December 18, 1974. However, it was only on July 5, 1977
that such deed was registered; hence, Marasigan’s title bears with it the above
notice of lis pendens.

The Bazars filed a petition for relief of the February 24 judgment and
while this was pending, the moved to set aside the same on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over their persons. Meanwhile, Marron’s Land Registration Court
case was dismissed by CFI Manila, Br. XIII for said court acting as an L.R.C.
cannot act under summary proceedings for having only limited and special
jurisdiction. Then, Marron filed another civil case to cancel Marasigan’s TCT.
This was denied for being premature. But, on appeal, the IAC ruled in favor of
Marron by virtue of the notice of lis pendens. Hence, this petition by the heirs
of Marasigan, the latter having died in the course of the proceedings.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the party who bought it with a notice of lis pendens
annotated at the back of her title has the better right to the property in
question as against the party in whose favor the notice was made

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, stating that this
question is resolved in favor of the party who had the notice annotated and
who won the litigation over the property, Maria Marron in this case.

A notice of lis pendens means that a certain property is involved in a

litigation and serves as a notice to the whole world that one who buys the same
does it at his own risk. It was also a clear notice to Maria Marasigan that there
was a court case affecting her rights to the property she had purchased.

In the case at bar, although Marasigan acquired the property in question

on December 18, 1974 or a little over four (4) months before the filing of
Marron’s civil action against the Bazars, the transaction became effective as
against third persons only on July 5, 1977, when it was registered with the
Register of Deeds of Manila. It is the act of registration which creates
constructive notice to the whole world. Section 51 of Act 496, as amended by
Section 52 of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529) provides: “Sec. 52.
Constructive notice upon registration. – Every conveyance x x x affecting
registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the Register of
Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be
constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or
entering.”