Herminia Mendoza v. Sps.

Armando and Angela Garana and FEBTC

On August 16, 1993, the heirs of Manuel Uy caused the annotation of the adverse claim on the title of
Jalbuena but on October 1994, it was cancelled upon the filing of the affidavit of a person not a party to
the case by the name of Bienaflor Umali. On October 6, 1993, the RD entered the notice of lis pendens in
the primary entry book but not in the title because the RD original title was not in the RD’s vault as it was
in the custody of the clerk. Meantime, when sps. Garana learned that the adverse claim was cancelled by
Buenaflor Umali; Sometime November, they bought the subject land from jalbuena. In accordance with
the sale, new title was issued in the name of SPs. Garana without the notice of lis pendens of Uy since lis
pendens was not annotated in Jalbuena’s title. Sps. Garana mortgaged the land to the far East Bank and
Trust Co. The heirs of Manuel Uy filed a notice of lis pendens to be annotated on Sps, Garana;s title
which was objected to by Garana.

Issue/Ruling
W/n the entry
of the notice of
lis pendens in
the primary
entry book
amounts to a
valid
registration
and binds the
third party?
Yes. In
involuntary
dealing like lis
pendes, the
law does not
require the
presentation as
well as the
annotation of
the
involuntary
instrument on
the owner’s
duplicate of
title or even on
the original.
The mere
recording of
the
involuntary
instrument in
the primary
entry book or
daybook is
sufficient to
bind persons
dealing with it
in accordance
with Section 52
of PD 1529.

2. w/n sps.
Garana and
bpi acted in
good faith?
No. Even
before the
heirs of UY
sought the
registration of
their notice of
lis pendens on
October 6,
1993, an
adverse claim
was already
annotated, an
adverse but
was cancelled
through the
affidavit
executed by an
Bienaflor
Umali.
Not
Purchasers in
good
faith( Sps.
Garana and
{PBI-
mortgagee)
a. The mere
fact that a
different
person sought
the
cancellation
of the adverse
claim on
Jalbuena’s
property
should have
triggered the
Sps.
Garana;s
suspicion
regarding the
condition of
the land. –
The person
who has
knowledge of
the fact that
would trigger
the suspicion
as to the
condition of
the land is
duty bound
to investigate
or to go
beyond the
title of the
vendors
otherwise he
will not be
considered
purchaser in
good faith.

b. BPI is not
also a
mortgagee in
good faith. As
a banking
insitiution, it
is xpected to
exercise a
higher degree
of diligence.
If it have
been
diligence, it
could have
discovered
that the
adverse claim
have been
cancelled by a
different
persons.