FACTS
In 1974, a deed of absolute sale was executed by Fe Bazar in favor of
Maria Marasigan. However, in 1975, Maria Marron was declared the owner
of the subject property in a land registration case. She filed a motion for
execution which was granted. The spouses, Bazar, refused to surrender
their title and to execute the deed of sale in Marrons favor.
In 1978, when Marasigan had the title registered, the Register of Deeds of
Manila issued a TCT naming Maria Marasigan as the new owner, the notice
of lis pendenscaused to be annotated by Marron on the Bazars title was
carried over on the said new title.
ISSUE
Whether the party who bought the property with a notice of lis
pendens annotated at the back of her title has a better right over the
party in whose favor the notice of lis pendens was made.
RULING
No. The Court affirmed the ruling of the appellate court which ruled in
favor of the party how had the notice annotated and who won the
litigation over the property.
The Court reiterated the established rule that:
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 acquire on the property is subject to the eventuality of the
suit. 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. (Laroza v. Guia, 134 SCRA 34 1)
FACTS:
Respondent Morato filed a free patent application on a parcel of land,
which was approved and issued an original certificate of title. Both the free
patent and title specifically mandate that the land shall not be alienated
nor encumbered within 5 years from the date of the issuance of the
patent. The District Land Officer, acting upon reports that Morato had
encumbered the land and upon finding that the subject land is submerged
in water during high tide and low tide, filed a complaint for cancellation of
the title and reversion of the parcel of land to the public domain. RTC
dismissed the complaint. CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not respondent violated the free patent condition prohibiting
encumbering the land within the 5-year period?
2. Whether or not the land is of public domain?
HELD
1. Yes. Public Land Act Sec. 18 provides thatlands acquired under free
patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or
alienation from the date of approval of the application and for a term of 5
years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grantThe
contracts of lease and mortgage executed by Morato constitute an
encumbrance as contemplated by section 18 of the Public Land Act
because such contracts impair the use of the property.
2. Yes. Based from the facts, the land is clearly foreshore as it is subject to
the ebb and flow of the tide. When the sea moved towards the estate and
the tide invaded it, the invaded property became foreshore land and
passed to the realm of the public domain. In Government v. Cabangis, the
Court annulled the registration of land subject of cadastral proceedings
when the parcel subsequently became foreshore land. In another case, the
Court voided the registration decree of a trial court and held that said
court had no jurisdiction to award foreshore land to any private person or
entity. The subject land in this case, being foreshore land should therefor
be returned to the public domain.