LAROZA v.

GUIA therein and, therefore, any right they may thereafter acquire on
Things in Litigation|January 31, 1985|J. Relova
Nature of the Case: Appeal
Digest Maker: BJMB
SUMMARY: Laroza claims to have bought a parcel of land from Guia in good
faith and for valuable consideration, and because of an attempt to survey and
partition the land by virtue of a court decision against Guia, they filed a
petition to quiet title. The Court held that Laroza took the risk of losing the
property in case of a decision adverse to their predecessor-in-interest because
of the notice of lis pendens, which had the effect informing everyone about the
status of the property.
DOCTRINE: The filing of a notice of lis pendens charges all strangers with a
notice of the particular litigation referred to therein and, therefore, any right
they may thereafter acquired on the property is subject to the eventuality of
the suit.
the property is subject to the eventuality of the suit.
c. The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reason of public
policy and necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject
matter of the litigation within the power of the Court until the
judgment or decree shall have been entered; otherwise, by
successive alienations pending the litigation, its judgment or
decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution.
d. Having purchased the property with notice of lis pendens,
appellants took the risk of losing it in case the decision in the
said civil case, as what actually happened, is adverse to their
predecessor-in-interest, Francisco Guia.
e. Contrary to the contention of Laroza, there is an identity of the
cause of action between his case and that of Guia such that
would merit the application of res judicata: both cases involve a
question of ownership.
RULING: for lack of merit, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED

FACTS:
 On June 30, 1973, Laroza purchased a parcel of land in San Pablo, NOTES:
Laguna belonging to Francsisco Guia. It was claimed that the purchase - Laroza claims that there was no hearing on the case but there was
was made in good faith and for valuable consideration. Laroza alleged actually one on Aug 12, 1974;
to have relied upon the ff. documents of ownership: Deed of -
Extrajudicial Partition, Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Francsico Guia,
and Deed of Donation Inter Vivos;
 Prior to the sale, there had already been a notice of lis pendens registered
in the Office of the Register of Deeds of San Pablo.
 Their possession was then interrupted when there was an attempt to
survey and partition the land by virtue of a court decision dated
December 29, 1966 against Francisco Guia and in favor of Ronaldo Guia
over the said property.
 Laroza then filed for a petition to quiet title of Ronaldo Guia, but this
was dismissed by the lower court on the basis of res judicata. An appeal
was brought before the CA, which was automatically transmitted to the
SC on the basis of a pure question of law.

ISSUES & RATIO:

1. W/N the case for quieting of title is already barred by a previous

judgment. YES.
a. Prior to the sale entered into between Laroza and Francisco
Guia, a notice of lis pendens had already been registered with the
register of deeds of San Pablo.
b. The filing of a notice of lis pendens has the effect of charging all
strangers with a notice of the particular litigation referred to