Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 129 views

    AFP Mutual Benefit Association Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    ana ortiz
    This case involves a dispute over six parcels of land between Investco, Inc., Solid Homes, and AFP Mutual Benefit Association. Solid Homes had agreed to purchase the land from Investco in installments but failed to make further payments. Investco sued Solid Homes for specific performance and damages. Solid Homes then filed a notice of lis pendens to prevent any transfer of the property, but the notice was not annotated on the titles. Investco later sold the property to AFP Mutual Benefit Association. Solid Homes then sued to compel annotation of the lis pendens notice. The court ruled that Solid Homes was not entitled to annotation because the original case was an in personam action for unpaid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AFP Mutual Benefit Association Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    ana ortiz
    129 views3 pages
    This case involves a dispute over six parcels of land between Investco, Inc., Solid Homes, and AFP Mutual Benefit Association. Solid Homes had agreed to purchase the land from Investco in installments but failed to make further payments. Investco sued Solid Homes for specific performance and damages. Solid Homes then filed a notice of lis pendens to prevent any transfer of the property, but the notice was not annotated on the titles. Investco later sold the property to AFP Mutual Benefit Association. Solid Homes then sued to compel annotation of the lis pendens notice. The court ruled that Solid Homes was not entitled to annotation because the original case was an in personam action for unpaid

    Original Title

    AFP Mutual Benefit Association vs CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over six parcels of land between Investco, Inc., Solid Homes, and AFP Mutual Benefit Association. Solid Homes had agreed to purchase the land from Investco in installments but failed to make further payments. Investco sued Solid Homes for specific performance and damages. Solid Homes then filed a notice of lis pendens to prevent any transfer of the property, but the notice was not annotated on the titles. Investco later sold the property to AFP Mutual Benefit Association. Solid Homes then sued to compel annotation of the lis pendens notice. The court ruled that Solid Homes was not entitled to annotation because the original case was an in personam action for unpaid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    129 views3 pages

    AFP Mutual Benefit Association Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    ana ortiz
    This case involves a dispute over six parcels of land between Investco, Inc., Solid Homes, and AFP Mutual Benefit Association. Solid Homes had agreed to purchase the land from Investco in installments but failed to make further payments. Investco sued Solid Homes for specific performance and damages. Solid Homes then filed a notice of lis pendens to prevent any transfer of the property, but the notice was not annotated on the titles. Investco later sold the property to AFP Mutual Benefit Association. Solid Homes then sued to compel annotation of the lis pendens notice. The court ruled that Solid Homes was not entitled to annotation because the original case was an in personam action for unpaid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc.

    vs CA
    Appeal by Certiorari

    FACTS:

     Investco, Inc. was the owner of six parcels of land in Quezon City and Marikina under titles in
    the names of its predecessors-in-interests, Angela Perez-Staley and Antonio Perez, Jr.
     Investco, Inc. agreed to sell the six parcels of land to Solid Homes payable in installments
     The parties further agreed that Solid Homes would evict the squatters in the property or obtain
    a waiver from them, that it would cause the original titles to be cancelled and new ones issued
    in the name of Investco, Inc. and that Investco, Inc. would contribute one-half of the expenses
    in clearing the property of occupants
     Register of deeds Marikina issued TCT in favor of Investco but The contract of sale to Solid
    Homes was not registered with the Registry of Deeds of Marikina nor annotated on the original
    titles issued in the name of Investco, Inc
     Solid Homes made no further payment to Investco after paying several installments
     he postdated checks issued by Solid homes to Investco, Inc. intended for the remaining
    installments were dishonored
     Investco, Inc. filed with the CFI Pasig an action for specific performance and damages against
    Solid Homes, Inc
     Slod Himes answered alleging that the purchase price under the contract was "not yet due" and
    that the former, in fact, exceeded the installment payments due thereon
     Solid Homes filed with the Register of Deeds of Marikina a notice of lis pendens with reference
    to the Civil Case requesting that the same be annotated on the titles in Investco, Inc’s name. On
    the same date, the notice of lis pendens was recorded
     However, the notice of lis pendens was not actually annotated on the titles in the name of
    Investco, Inc.
     CFI favored Investco, Inc.
     Investco, Inc. offered to sell the property to AFP Mutual Benefit Association and Investco, Inc.
    furnished AFP MBAI with certified true copies of the titles covering the Marikina property.
     AFP MBAI verified the titles with the Register of Deeds of Marikina and found out that the titles
    were genuine and no liens thus purchased the lands
     Solid Homes commenced action before the RTC Marikina, against the Register of Deeds, AFP
    MBAI and Investco, Inc. for "annotation of lis pendens and damages" with temporary restraining
    order and preliminary injunction
     RTC ordered the ROD to annotate the notice of lis pendens in the titles and declared AFP MBAI
    a purchaser in bad faith; CA affirmed

    ISSUE:

    WON Solid Homes is entitled to the annotation of its notice of lis pendens

    HELD:

    NO. The suit is to compel the Register of Deeds of Marikina to annotate the notice of lis pendens on the
    titles of AFP MBAI with a claim for damages against Investco, Inc. and AFP MBAI for depriving Solid
    Homes of its rights to the property as provided under the contract to buy and sell.
    Obviously, the Register of Deeds obligation to annotate the notice of lis pendens is one that arises from
    law. Hence, the action is actually one for mandamus to compel the performance of a clear legal duty.
    There is no such action as one for "annotation of lis pendens," as Solid Homes sought in its complaint.

    "Lis pendens is a Latin term which literally means a pending suit or a pending litigation while a notice
    of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation,
    serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest over the said property does so at his own risk,
    or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the said property. It is but a signal to the
    intending buyer or mortgagee to take care or beware and to investigate the prospect or non-prospect
    of the litigation succeeding before he forks down his money."

    A notice of lis pendens is not and can not be sought as a principal action for relief. The notice of lis
    pendens--that real property is involved in an action--is ordinarily recorded without the intervention of
    the court where the action is pending. As a settled rule, notice of lis pendens may be annotated only
    where there is an action or proceeding in court which affects title to or possession of real property.

    Under Presidential Decree No. 1529, known as the "Property Registration Decree of 1978", the Register
    of Deeds may deny registration of the notice of lis pendens, which denial may be appealed by the
    applicant en consulta (Section 10, paragraph 2) to the Commissioner of Land Registration.

    Here, the Register of Deeds of Marikina denied the annotation of the notice of lis pendens on the
    ground that the complaint in Civil Case No. 40615 was for collection of a sum of money and did not
    involve the titles to or possession of the subject property. If Solid Homes did not agree with the denial
    of the Register of Deeds, it could appeal the same en consulta to the Commissioner of Land
    Registration. The resolution of the Commissioner may then be appealed to the Court of Appeals,
    which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the same, "within the period and in the manner provided in
    Republic Act No. 5434."

    In its questioned decision, the Court of Appeals held that the action filed by Investco, Inc. against Solid
    Homes "is not exclusively for payment of the unpaid installments on the purchase price of the subject
    properties and damages, but also one for rescission of the contract to sell and to buy the subject
    properties which necessarily involves delivery of possession and ownership of the same."

    We do not agree. The Court of Appeals went beyond the allegations in the complaint and ventured into
    speculation and conjecture. There is nothing in Investcos complaint in Civil Case No. 40615 that even
    remotely suggests that Investco, Inc. has rescinded the contract, or that it sought the rescission of the
    sale as an alternative remedy. Specific performance and rescission are alternative remedies which a
    party may not avail himself of at the same time.

    The case was an action for collection of unpaid installments on the purchase price subject real
    property. In such case, the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the titles of the property was not
    proper as the action was in personam.

    Consequently, the doctrine of lis pendens is inapplicable to this case. The Register of Deeds of Marikina
    correctly denied the annotation of the notice of lis pendens on the titles.
    Even on the basis of Solid Homes counterclaim, notice of lis pendens is improper as the counterclaim
    was also for sums of money--alleged excess payment and for damages--not one affecting title to or
    possession of real property. Such counterclaim did not convert the nature of the action into a real action
    involving title to or possession of subject property.

    The rule that "all persons dealing with property covered by Torrens Certificate of title are not required
    to go beyond what appears on the face of the title" applies herein with full vigor. In the absence of
    anything to excite suspicion, the buyer is not obligated to look beyond the certificate to investigate the
    titles of the seller appearing on the face of the certificate.

    Good faith is always presumed and Solid Homes adduced no evidence to prove such allegation of bad
    faith thus the conclusion is inevitable that contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals, AFP MBAI was
    a purchaser in good faith and for value, and, consequently, acquired valid and indefeasible titles to the
    Investco, Inc. property.

    Solid Homes claim is predicated on the assumption that AFP MBAI is a transferee pendente lite of
    Investco, Inc. of the subject parcels of land and bound by the result of the suit. Such claim is not
    factually or legally correct. In the absence of a valid notice of lis pendens annotated in the titles, AFP
    MBAI is a buyer in good faith and for value, and thus, acquired clean and valid titles to the property in
    question.

    You might also like