Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page | 1
Page | 2
Page | 3
Page | 4
Page | 5
Page | 6
Page | 7
Page | 8
Page | 9
Page | 10
Page | 11
Page | 12
Page | 13
Page | 14
Page | 15
Page | 16
Viewmaster v. Maulit
People v. RTC of Manila
Tanchoco v. Aquino
FACTS:
Lot 314 was a conjugal property of the
deceased Maximo Viola and his deceased
wife Juana Viola. The whole lot was titled in
the name of their son, respondent Rafael
Viola way back in 1937.
On April 6, 1964, Rafael Viola sold the
undivided one-half (1/2) portion of Lot 314 to
Petitioners Pastor, Macario and Agripino
Tanchoco for the sum of P50,000.00 this
portion was subsequently designated as Lot
314-B-2-A in the name of said petitioners.
Then, on June 5, 1965, Rafael sold sixseventh (6/7) of the undivided one-half (1/2)
portion to the other petitioners Inocencia,
Liberata and Trinidad Tanchoco for the sum
of P42,000.00
In a Civil Case filed before the CIF of Nueva
Ecija, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
Vicenta T. Vda. de Lajom and Jose T. Lajom,
over the undivided one-half of lot 314
described under TCT No. 11682.
A subsequent order was issued by the CIF,
rdering the cancellation of all annotations
with respect to the undivided one-half (1/2)
of lot 314 described under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 11682 after the notice
of lis pendens at the back of the said title
was annotated.
The annotation of lis pendens on said TCT
reads as follows:
Entry No. 19553/T-14707; Kind Lis
pendens in favor of Donato Lajom;
Conditions-1/2 of the properties described
in this title is the object of a complaint
filed in Civil Case No. 8077 of the C.F.I. of
N.E.; Date of instrument Dec. 16, 1949;
Date of Inscription Jan. 11, 1950 at
2:00 p.m.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the questioned
orders, dismissing the instant petition for
Page | 17
Page | 18
Page | 19
Page | 20
payment to Investco, Inc. Angela PerezStaley and Antonio Perez, Jr. filed with the
Court of First an action for specific
performance and damages against Solid
Homes. Solid Homes filed with the trial court
an answer to Investco, Inc.'s complaint
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 prayed
for dismissal of Investco, Inc.'s complaint,
Solid Homes filed with the Register of Deeds
of Marikina a notice of lis pendens requesting
that the same be annotated on the titles in
Investco, Inc.'s name. However, the notice of
lis pendens was not actually annotated on
the titles in the name of Investco, Inc.
the trial court rendered judgment in favor of
Investco, Inc. ordering Solid Homes to pay
plaintiffs
the trial court ordered the original record
transmitted to the appellate court in view of
Solid Homes' filing of a notice of appeal.
In the meantime, Investco, Inc. offered to
sell the property to AFP Mutual Benefit
Association, Inc. For P24,000,000.00,
payable in installments. Investco, Inc.
furnished AFP MBAI with certified true copies
of the titles covering the Marikina property.
Moreover, AFP MBAI, through its Real Estate
Committee, made an ocular inspection of the
property. AFP MBAI confirmed the presence
of squatter shanties numbering about twenty
(20) to thirty (30). Except for a foot path
used by the squatters, there was no
development on the property.
After determining that the Investco property
was suitable for the housing project of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines and that the
titles covering the same were "clean" and
"genuine," AFP MBAI agreed to purchase the
same from Investco, Inc. for the price of
P24,000,000.00, payable in installments for a
period of one (1) year.
Among other terms, Investco, Inc. warranted
to AFP MBAI that "it has good and valid title
Page | 21
Page | 22
Gonzales v. Ordonez-Benitez
FACTS:
Rodolfo P. Gonzalez had four children in his
marriage with Carmen Rojas. After Carmen
died. Rodolfo married Dr. Luz Dizon and they
had two children. On November 11, 1974
Rodolfo P. Gonzalez and his second wife
executed an "Agreement for Dissolution of
Conjugal Partnership and for Establishment
of Separation of Property," for the declared
purpose of avoiding "confusion and/or
differences among the two sets of heirs (of
said Rodolfo Gonzalez) in the settlement of
the estates of the said spouses in case of
death." They then filed a petition for
approval of their agreement, entitled "In the
Matter of the Voluntary Dissolution of
Conjugal Partnership,". Rodolfo's children by
his first marriage moved for, and were
granted leave, to intervene in the case.
On March 4, 1975 Salvador R. Gonzalez, the
eldest of the four children of the first
marriage, instituted in the same Court
proceedings to place under guardianship the
property of his father Rodolfo P. Gonzalez,
grounded on the latter's alleged incapacity
"to manage and direct his financial and
ownership status" resulting from the
deterioration of his mental faculties on
account of illness and advanced age. The
petition further averred that prejudice would
be caused to the children of the first
marriage. Rodolfo P. Gonzalez and his wife
drew up a contract for the sale of two parcels
of land in favor of Helen Grace Silvestre and
Rica Marie re. It appears however that the
mortgagee banks were not willing to accede
to the assumption by the vendees of the
spouses' mortgage obligations. What the
vendor spouses did, on July 16, 1975, was to
cause annotation of the sales as adverse
claims on the corresponding certificates of
title.
Salvador R. Gonzalez himself caused notices
of lis pendens to be annotated sometime in
September, 1975 on the spouses' titles not
only over the two lots, but also over other
property in the name of Gonzalez Spouses
and the Spouses Trinidad de la Pea and
Aurea Dizon de la Pea, and in the name of
Page | 23
Page | 24
Page | 25
Page | 26
Page | 27
Page | 28
Page | 29
Page | 30
Page | 31
Page | 32
Page | 33
Page | 34
Held:
Petition does not hold merit. Since the
requisites of lis pendens is different from that
of an adverse claim. Even though the same
may be subject of both annotations. The
register of deeds should have given favor the
annotation of adverse claim rather that that
of notice of lis pendens. They are not
contradictory or repugnant with each other
hence petitioner has right to annotate
adverse claim
Facts:
Blue chips inc, an organization duly
organized under philippine law bought a land
situated in rizal from purita landicho.
Doronila caused the preparation of
annotation of lis pendens at the back of the
title since the subject land is pending
litigation. The same corp thru its president
registered the land thru the rd of rizal
adverse claim. Rd of rizal denied and case
was elevated en consulta thru the lrc. Lrc
affirmed rd's decision Denying registration of
adverse claim. Winmar poultry purchased the
said land and a new title was formed in their
favor. Hence this petition
Page | 35
Page | 36
Page | 37
Page | 38
Republic v. CA
Page | 39
Page | 40
Page | 41
Page | 42
Page | 43
Page | 44
Page | 45