Atkins, Kroll & Company, Inc.

v Santiago Domingo ISSUE/S & RATIO:

Things in Litigation | 4 October 1924 | Street, J. 1. WON Atkins Kroll & Co. may recover the subject properties – YES
a. It must strike one as remarkably strange that Santiago should have waited
Nature of Case: Appeal for nearly 7 years before formulating his claim or taking any step whatever
Digest maker: Andrew to protect his title to said buildings.
SUMMARY: Santiago Domingo sold his interest in the land with improvements to Ong b. Even assuming, that the buildings were in fact constructed by the Santiago
Kong who subsequently sold the same to Atkins, Kroll & Co. Santiago, who was in with his own money, and with the consent of his father, his right to the
possession of the property refused to admit Atkins as a co-owner. buildings has been lost, except in so far as he is owner of an undivided one-
DOCTRINE: The notice of lis pendens is meant to charge the third person with notice of the fourth interest by inheritance; and the interests of the two parties to this
litigation referred to in the notice. If the notice is effective, the third person who acquires the litigation in the properties in question must be taken to be exactly as they
property affected by the lis pendens takes subject to the eventuality of the litigation. But are stated in the existing certificates of title. This results from the fact that
when the adverse right fails in such litigation, the lis pendens becomes innocuous. the plaintiff is a purchaser who has acquired the interests shown on the
existing Torrens certificates upon the faith of the registered title
FACTS: c. On lis pendens: Santiago insisted that Atkins has been affected with the
 Jun 24, 1912: The Court of Land Registration adjudicated Lot Nos. 26, 28, and 55 to notice of Santiago’s right by the filing of a lis pendens. Notice of said lis
Buenaventura Domingo. Corresponding decrees of registration were issued with the pendens was noted on the back of the corresponding certificates of title.
words “with all the improvements existing thereon” Upon the date stated the plaintiff had already acquired a mortgage upon
 Oct 21, 1912: Buenaventura Domingo died intestate leaving a widow, children, and the interest of Zoila Domingo in the estate of her grandfather,
grandchildren as heirs. Santiago Domingo, Buenaventura’s son was qualified as the Buenaventura Domingo; and by the foreclosure of that mortgage all of her
administrator of his estate. Another son, Leon Domingo (Zoila Domingo as daughter interest in lots Nos. 36 and 38 became vested in Atkins. as purchaser. The
and heir), died on Aug 21, 1913, and Santiago qualified as administrator of Leon's remaining interests acquired by Atkins in the same properties appear to
estate. Santiago submitted a project of partition to the court in which Lot Nos. 36, 38, have been acquired by it after the notice of lis pendens was filed.
and 55 are mentioned as properties pertaining to the decedent. In this project, no d. The buildings which are the subject of controversy were placed on the land
mention was made of improvements on any of the sad lots except on Lot 38 (house of after the decree of registration. This circumstance made a proceeding under
strong materials). section 12 of Act No. 496 more necessary to protect the new interest thus
 Aug 8, 1918: The court approved the project without any objection from persons who created. So far as registered land is concerned, the right recognized in
were interested in the estate. article 361 and related provisions of the Civil Code is subject to the
 August 18, 1920: Santiago filed with the register of deeds a notice of lis pendens, contingency that it shall be noted in the registered title before the property
setting forth his claim of ownership as to the improvements in question, and passes into the hand of a purchaser for value.
referring to the controversy planted in his explanatory report in the administration e. It is evident that Santiago is estopped by his own deed, by the sale to Ong
proceedings. Kong, from claiming any interest in the buildings on this lot, whatever
might have been the law governing his claim to the buildings on the other
 Feb 17, 1923 Santiago Domingo sold his entire interest in Lot 38 “with all the
lot.
improvements existing thereon” by a contract of sale with pacto de retro to Ong
Kong; right to redeem within 1 year but was never redeemed. Ong Kong
subsequently sold his entire interest to Atkins.
RULING: The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity
 The shares pertaining to the other heirs in lots Nos. 36, 38, and 55 suffered several
with this opinion, without express pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
mutations as to ownership; but in the end, the authenticity, legality, and good faith of
which are not questioned either in the pleadings or in the proof, all said interests
came to rest in Atkins. Each step in all these mutations of title was accompanied by
the corresponding proper changes in the Torrens certificates of title Nos. 3433, 3843,
3435, showing the present ownership of the lots and improvements. From these
certificates it appears that the plaintiff, Atkins. is the owner of:
o 3/4 of lot No. 36, with the improvements thereon;
o Whole Lot No. 38, with the improvements thereon;
o 3/4 of lot No. 55, excluding the improvements.
 Santiago, in possession of said property since Atkins acquired its interest, exclusively
enjoyed the use of all the lots, with the income derived from the buildings. the
buildings referred to were erected in the latter months of the year 1912 and first half
of 1913
 This circumstance, coupled with this refusal to admit the plaintiff's claim as co-
owner, resulted in the institution of the present action for recovering possession of lot
No. 38 and to secure a partition of lots Nos. 36 and 55, with an accounting for the
plaintiff's proper proportion of the profits.