LTD Syllabus Reviewer

8/10/2019 LTD Syllabus Reviewer

1/11

IV. Amendment and Alteration

Section 108.Amendment and alterationof certificates. No erasure, alteration, oramendment shall be made upon the

registration book after the entry of acertificate of title or of a memorandumthereon and the attestation of the samein the Register of Deeds, except byorder of the proper Court of FirstInstance. A registered owner of otherperson having an interest in registeredproperty, or, in proper cases, theRegister of Deeds with the approval ofthe Commissioner of Land Registration,may apply by petition to the court uponthe ground that the registered interests

of any description, whether vested,contingent, expectant or inchoateappearing on the certificate, haveterminated and ceased; or that newinterest not appearing upon thecertificate have arisen or been created;or that an omission or error was madein entering a certificate or anymemorandum thereon, or, on anyduplicate certificate; or that the same orany person on the certificate has been

changed; or that the registered ownerhas married, or, if registered as married,that the marriage has been terminatedand no right or interests of heirs orcreditors will thereby be affected; orthat a corporation which ownedregistered land and has been dissolvedhas not convened the same within threeyears after its dissolution; or upon anyother reasonable ground; and the courtmay hear and determine the petitionafter notice to all parties in interest, and

may order the entry or cancellation of anew certificate, the entry or cancellationof a memorandum upon a certificate, orgrant any other relief upon such termsand conditions, requiring security orbond if necessary, as it may considerproper; Provided, however, That thissection shall not be construed to give

the court authority to reopen thejudgment or decree of registration, andthat nothing shall be done or ordered bythe court which shall impair the title orother interest of a purchaser holding acertificate for value and in good faith, orhis heirs and assigns, without his ortheir written consent. Where theowner's duplicate certificate is notpresented, a similar petition may be filedas provided in the preceding section.

All petitions or motions filed under thisSection as well as under any otherprovision of this Decree after originalregistration shall be filed and entitled inthe original case in which the decree or

registration was entered.

Cases:

Averia v. Caguioa

146 SCRA 459

Same; Same; Same; Same; Regional trialcourt, now authorizedto hear and decide not only non-

controversial cases but also contentiousand substantial issues.Consequently,and specifically with reference toSection 112 of the Land RegistrationAct (now Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529),the court is no longer fettered by itsformer limited jurisdiction whichenabled it to grant relief only in caseswhere there was "unanimity among theparties" or none of them raised any"adverse claim or serious objection."Under the amended law, the court isnow authorized to hear and decide notonly such non-controversial cases buteven the contentious and substantialissues, such as the question at bar,which were beyond its competencebefore.

Facts:


2/11

The oppositor, petitioner herein, refusedto participate in the hearing of theregistration proceedings below,claiming the respondent court, acting asa cadastral court, had no competence toact upon the said case under Section 112of Act 496, otherwise known as the"Land Registration Act."

The respondent court then held thehearing ex parte and later rendered adecision ordering the registrationprayed for on the basis of the evidencepresented by the private respondentherein.

It is argued that the lower court hadno competence to act on the registrationsought because of the absence ofunanimity among the parties as requiredunder Section 112 of the LandRegistration Act.

The petitioner cites Fojas v. GreyIn a long line of decisions dealingwith proceedings under Section 112 ofthe Land Registration Act, it has been

held that summary relief under Section112 of Land Registration Act can onlybe granted if there is unanimity amongthe parties, or there is no adverse claimor serious objection on the part of anyparty in interest; otherwise, the casebecomes contentious and controversialwhich should be threshed out in anordinary action or in any case where theincident properly belongs.

While this was a correct interpretation

of the said provision, the same is,however, not applicable to the instantcase. The reason is that this case arosein 1982, after the Land Registration Acthad been superseded by the PropertyRegistration Decree, which becameeffective on June 11,1979.

Issue:Whether or not the court hasjurisdiction to order the registration of adeed of sale, opposed on the ground ofan antecedent contract to sell?

Held:The above provision has eliminated thedistinction between the generaljurisdiction vested in the regional trialcourt and the limited jurisdictionconferred upon it by the former lawwhen acting merely as a cadastral court.Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits,the change has simplified registrationproceedings by conferring upon theregional trial courts the authority to act

not only on applications for "originalregistration" but also "over all petitionsfiled afteroriginal registration of title, with powerto hear and determine all questionsarising upon such applications orpetitions."

It appears that the respondent courtproceeded to hear the case belownotwithstanding the manifestation by

the petitioner of his intention to elevateto this Court the question of jurisdictionhe had raised. The trial court shouldhave given him the opportunity to do soin the interest of due process, pending acategorical ruling on the issue. As ithappened, it arrived at its decision afterconsidering only the evidence of theprivate respondent and without regardto the evidence of the petitioner.

Cuyugan vs Sy Quia

24 Phil 567

COURT OF LAND REGISTRATION; OPENING OF FINALDECREES TO ADMIT NEWEVIDENCE.A decree entered by theCourt of Land Registration cannot beconsidered as permanent if the limits of


3/11

the land therein registered may bechanged or the area of the land soregistered can be altered by asubsequent adjudication by the court,based upon new evidence tending toshow that the evidence introduced atthe former hearing was incorrect.

ID; CORRECT AND ERRONEOUSDECREES. A decree by the Court ofLand Registration, entered upon thefacts as they appeared, but which werenot true, is not an erroneous decree; it isa decree which is correct according tothe evidence. A decree at variance withthe evidence presented at the hearing isan erroneous decree and, within certain

limitations, may be corrected toconform to the evidence.

ID; CONTESTS OVERBOUNDARIES AFTER DECREEBECOMES FINAL Contests arisingover the location of boundary lines areactions in personam and must be triedin the ordinary courts of law. After landhas been finally registered, the Court ofLand Registration ceases to have

jurisdiction. The only authorityremaining in the Court ofLand Registration, after its decreebecomes final, is that conferred bysection 112 of Act No. 496.

Facts:

The original application which resultedin the decree aforesaid was made in thename of Manuel E. Cuyugan y Vergara.Pedro Sy Quia, who owned the land

bounding uponthe north side the lands sought to beregistered, opposed the registration.

After a trial in the Court of LandRegistration the opposition of Sy Quiawas overruled and the propertywas registered in the name of Manuel E.

Cuyugan y Vergara aforesaid.

After the registration of the landManuel E. Cuyugan y Vergara sold thesame to Lim Tuico in themanner prescribed in Act No. 496

Until the 19th of December, 1911, nocontroversy had arisen between PedroSy Quia and Manuel E. Cuyugan yVergara or his grantee, Lim Tuico, inregard to the actual location of the linebetween their lands as described anddefined in the decree of registrationentered on the 11th day of July, 1907.

On said December 19, 1911, the city of

Manila presented to the Court of LandRegistration the following writing:

"[Expediente No. 3325. MarianoCuyugan, applicant.]"The city of Manila by its attorneyappears and respectfully sets forth tothe court:That the plan of the land to which theabove proceedings refer contains anerror of closure greater than 1/1500;

That the city of Manila is interested inthe correction of said error for thereason that it must condemn a part ofsaid land for a public street."Therefore, said city prays the court toorder a new measurement of said landdescribed in the plan filed in thisproceeding."

Upon the hearing thus set thereappeared the city of Manila, Lim Tuico,

and Pedro Sy Quia. Without any of theparties objecting to or in any wayquestioning the power or authority ofthe city of Manila to begin such aproceeding, trial was had, evidence wasintroduced by the city, by Lim Tuico,and by Sy Quia relative to the locationof the line between the lands registered


4/11

and the lands of Sy Quia.

Upon the evidence thus adduced theCourt of Land Registration entered adecree.

(a) That said new plan, being folio No.68 of expedienteNo. 3325, be approved;

(b) That the certificate of title andduplicate thereof, entered and issued asaforesaid in the name of thesaid Lim Tuico, be canceled by theregistrar of deeds of the city of Manilaand that a new certificate oftitle be entered and a new duplicate

issued to said Lim Tuico, includingtherein the technical descriptioncontained in said new plan, as follows:(New description.)

(c) That, for the purpose indicated, theduplicate certificate of title issued to thesaid Lim Tuico be delivered up to thesaid registrar of deeds withoutdelay."

This appeal is from that decree.A comparison of the plan which was thebasis of the original registration withthe plan made under the proceedingsinitiated by the city of Manila disclosesa difference in the size of the parcel ofland which the two plans are supposedto describe. There also appears fromsuch comparison a difference in thedirection of one or more of the lineswhich mark the limits of said land. Itappears from the record, indeed it is the

cause of the controversy now before us,that the new plan takes from Sy Quia asmall piece of land which pertained tohim under the original plan and decreeof the Court of Land Registration. Inother words, the result of theproceedings instituted nearly four yearsafter the final decree of the Court of

Land Registration, which final decreedefinitely and finally registered the landtherein described, extends the limits ofthe land thus registered toward andupon the lands of Sy Quia, therebydepriving him of land which was foundto belong to him in the proceedingsresulting in said decree and which lands,by virtue of such finding, were excludedfrom registration in the name of ManuelE. Cuyugan y Vergara. It is thus seenthat, under and as a result ofproceedings begun by the city ofManila, the Court of Land Registrationhas opened a final decree of that courtand changed not only the descriptionbut the area of the land registered by

that decree.This proceeding seems to have beenconducted by the city of Manila, by LimTuico, and by the court upon the theorythat its object was and the result wouldbe the correction of a decree of theCourt of Land Registration.

Issue:Whether or not the result of theproceeding in manila would corret the

decree of the Court of LandRegistration?

Held:

Whatever the intention of the partiesand of the court may have been theresult was not the correction of a decreebut the making of a new decree uponnew evidence. It was not the changingof a decree but the changing of theevidence upon which the decree was

based. It is not questioned by any of theparties or contradicted by any portion ofthe record that the original decree,entered on the 11th day of July, 1907,was in its provisions in strict accordwith the evidence in the case. The samedescription appears in the decree thatappears in the plan submitted describing


5/11

the lands registered. That a plan wasmade by an expert surveyor whotestified upon that proceeding to itscorrectness and to the location of thelines marking the boundaries of thelands registered. If there was a mistakein that description as given by the planand the testimony given by the surveyorwho made it to prove its correctness, itwas a mistake of evidence, an error offact. A decree entered upon facts whichare not true is not itself erroneous. It isa perfectly correct decree according tothe evidence in the case. No otherdecree could have been entered. Adecree which is at variance with theevidence presented to support that

decree is an erroneous decree and,within certain limitations, may becorrected to conform to the evidence.From this it is clear that what the LandCourt attempted and accomplished wasnot the correction of a decree but theretrial of the case with the production ofnew and conflicting evidence and theentering of a new decree thereupon.That the proceeding was a new trialessentially is demonstrated by the fact

that Lim Tuico claimed that thenorthern line was located at one placeand introduced evidence to support thatcontention, while Sy Quia claimed thatsaid line was located at another placeand introduced evidence to support hiscontention. Different surveyors werepresented as witnesses and gaveconflicting testimony as to where theline between Lim Tuico and Sy Quiawas really located.Upon this conflicting evidence the court

found that the line was locateddifferently from what its location wasfound to be on the trial of case No. 3325which resulted in the decree ofJuly 11, 1907. It found that, accordingto the preponderanceof the evidence, the line was located asdescribed in the new plan made by the

surveyor favorable to Lim Tuico andadjudged that the land registered in1907 was not correct in amount ordescription. It, therefore, decreed theregistration of the newly describedparcel of land. It is our opinion that theCourt of Land Registration exceeded itsauthority. The original and fundamentalpurpose of Act No. 496 was to settlefinally and for all time the title to landregistered. A decree of registrationcannot be permanent if the limits of theland therein registered may be changedor the amount of land so registeredaltered by a subsequent adjudication ofsaid court based upon new evidencetending to show that the evidence

introduced on the former hearing wasincorrect. Moreover, contests arisingover the location of division lines areactions in personam and must be triedin the ordinary courts of law and not inthe Court of Land Registration. Theyare actions involving the title to realestate, damages for illegal detention, forthe cutting of timber, or the taking ofcrops. Sometimes they are for ejectmentand sometimes for trespass. After the

land has been registered the Court ofLand Registration ceases to havejurisdiction over it for any purpose andit returns to the jurisdiction of theordinary courts of law of the Islands forall subsequent purposes. The onlyauthority remaining in the Court ofLand Registration after its decreebecomes final is that given to it bysection 112 of Act No. 496. That sectiondoes not convey authority to conduct aproceeding like the present or to take

cognizance in any way of disputessubsequently arising between adjoiningowners and owners of the landregistered.

Del Prado v. CaballeroG.R. No. 148225


6/11

Same; Same; Same; What really defines apiece of ground is not the area calculatedwith more or less certainty mentioned in itsdescription but the boundaries therein laiddown as enclosing the land and indicatingits limits. Where both the area and the

boundaries of the immovable are declared,the area covered within the boundaries ofthe immovable prevails over the stated area.In cases of conflict between areas andboundaries, it is the latter which shouldprevail. What really defines a piece ofground is not the area, calculated with moreor less certainty, mentioned in itsdescription, but the boundaries therein laiddown, as enclosing the land and indicatingits limits. In a contract of sale of land in amass, it is well-established that the specificboundaries stated in the contract mustcontrol over any statement with respect tothe area contained within its boundaries. Itis not of vital consequence that a deed orcontract of sale of land should disclose thearea with mathematical accuracy. It issufficient if its extent is objectivelyindicated with sufficient precision to enableone to identify it. An error as to thesuperficial area is immaterial. Thus, theobligation of the vendor is to delivereverything within the boundaries, inasmuchas it is the entirety thereof that

distinguishes the determinate object.

Land Titles; Indefeasibility of Titles;Prescription; It is a fundamental principle inland registration that a certificate of titleserves as evidence of an indefeasible andincontrovertible title to the property infavor of the person whose name appearstherein; Such indefeasibility commencesafter one year from the date of entry of thedegree of registration. We find noreversible error in the decision of the CA.Petitioners recourse, by filing the petitionfor registration in the same cadastral case,was improper. It is a fundamental principlein land registration that a certificate of titleserves as evidence of an indefeasible andincontrovertible title to the property infavor of the person whose name appearstherein. Such indefeasibility commencesafter one year from the date of entry of the

decree of registration. Inasmuch as thepetition for registration of document didnot interrupt the running of the period tofile the appropriate petition for review andconsidering that the prescribed one-yearperiod had long since expired, the decree of

registration, as well as the certificate of titleissued in favor of respondents, had becomeincontrovertible.

Judge Juan Y. Reyes of the RegionalTrial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch14, adjudicated in favor of SpousesAntonio L. Caballero and Leonarda B.Caballero several parcels of landsituated in Guba, Cebu City, one ofwhich was Cadastral LotNo. 11909, the subject of this

controversy.2 On May 21, 1987,Antonio Caballero moved for theissuance of the final decree ofregistration for their lots. Consequently,on May 25, 1987, the same court,through then Presiding Judge Renato C.Dacudao, ordered the National LandTitles and Deeds RegistrationAdministration to issue the decree ofregistration and thecorresponding titles of the lots in favor

of the Caballeros. On June 11, 1990,respondents sold to petitioner, Carmendel Prado, Lot No. 11909 on the basis ofthe tax declaration covering theproperty. On March 20, 1991, petitionerfiled in the same cadastral proceedings aPetition for Registration of DocumentUnderPresidential Decree (P.D.) 15297 inorder that a certificate of title be issuedin her name, covering the whole Lot No.11909. In the petition, petitioner alleged

that the tenor ofthe instrument of sale indicated that thesale was for a lump sum or cuerpocierto, in which case, the vendor wasbound to deliver all that was includedwithin said boundaries even when itexceeded the area specified in thecontract. Respondents opposed, on the


7/11

main ground that only 4,000sq m of Lot No. 11909 was sold topetitioner. They claimed that the salewas not for a cuerpo cierto. They movedfor the outright dismissal of the petitionon grounds of prescriptionand lack of jurisdiction.After trial on themerits, the court found that petitionerhad established a clear and positiveright to Lot No. 11909. The intendedsale between the parties was for a lumpsum, since there was no evidencepresented that the property was sold fora price per unit. It was apparent that thesubject matter of the sale was the parcelof land, known as Cadastral Lot No.11909, and not only a portion thereof.

An appeal was duly filed. On September26, 2000, the CA promulgated theassailed decision, reversing and settingaside the decision of the RTC.The CA no longer touched on thecharacter of the sale, because it foundthat petitioner availed herself of animproper remedy. The petition forregistration of document is not one ofthe remedies provided under P.D.No. 1529, after the original registration

has been effected. Thus, the CA ruledthat the lower court committed an errorwhen it assumed jurisdiction over thepetition, which prayed for a remedy notsanctioned under the PropertyRegistrationDecree.

Issue:Whether or not the sale of the land wasfor a lump sum or not?

Held:

We do not agree

The deed of sale is not one of a unitprice contract. The parties agreed onthe purchase price of P40,000.00 for apredetermined area of 4,000 sq m, more

or less, bounded on the North by LotNo. 11903, on the East byLot No. 11908, on the South by LotNos. 11858 & 11912, and on the Westby Lot No. 11910. In a contract of saleof land in a mass, the specific boundariesstated in the contract must control overany other statement, with respect to thearea contained within its boundaries.

We find no reversible error in thedecision of the CA. Petitionersrecourse, by filing the petition forregistration in the same cadastral case,was improper. It is a fundamentalprinciple in land registration that acertificate of title serves as evidence of

an indefeasible and incontrovertible titleto the property in favor of the personwhose name appears therein. Suchindefeasibility commences after one yearfrom the date of entry of the decree ofregistration.20 Inasmuch as the petitionfor registration of document did notinterrupt the running of the period tofile the appropriate petition for reviewandconsidering that the prescribed one-year

period had long since expired, thedecree of registration, as well as thecertificate of title issued in favor ofrespondents, had becomeincontrovertible.

V. Adverse Claim

Section 70.Adverse claim.Whoeverclaims any part or interest in registeredland adverse to the registered owner,arising subsequent to the date of theoriginal registration, may, if no otherprovision is made in this Decree forregistering the same, make a statementin writing setting forth fully his allegedright or interest, and how or underwhom acquired, a reference to thenumber of the certificate of title of theregistered owner, the name of the


8/11

registered owner, and a description ofthe land in which the right or interest isclaimed.

The statement shall be signed andsworn to, and shall state the adverseclaimant's residence, and a place atwhich all notices may be served uponhim. This statement shall be entitled toregistration as an adverse claim on thecertificate of title. The adverse claimshall be effective for a period of thirtydays from the date of registration. Afterthe lapse of said period, the annotationof adverse claim may be canceled uponfiling of a verified petition therefor bythe party in interest: Provided, however,

that after cancellation, no secondadverse claim based on the same groundshall be registered by the same claimant.

Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid,any party in interest may file a petitionin the Court of First Instance where theland is situated for the cancellation ofthe adverse claim, and the court shallgrant a speedy hearing upon thequestion of the validity of such adverse

claim, and shall render judgment as maybe just and equitable. If the adverseclaim is adjudged to be invalid, theregistration thereof shall be orderedcanceled. If, in any case, the court, afternotice and hearing, shall find that theadverse claim thus registered wasfrivolous, it may fine the claimant in anamount not less than one thousandpesos nor more than five thousandpesos, in its discretion. Before the lapseof thirty days, the claimant may

withdraw his adverse claim by filingwith the Register of Deeds a swornpetition to that effect.

Cases:

Concepcion v. Concepcion

Actions; Land Registration; Jurisdictions;Regional Trial Courts, as a LandRegistration Court, can hear casesotherwise litigable only in ordinary civilactions since RTCs are at the same timecourts of general jurisdiction.

Same; Judgments; A judgment that hasbecome final and executory can no longerbe amended or corrected except for clericalerrors and mistakes, and this rule holds trueregardless of whether the modification is tobe made by the magistrate who renderedthe judgment or by an appellate tribunalwhich reviewed the same.

All the parties in this case aredescendants of the late spouses Regino

Concepcion, Sr. and ConcepcionFamador. Petitioner Emmanuel is a sonof the late spouses while the otherpetitioners Betty, Jimmy, Rosario andJernie (all surnamed Concepcion) andthe respondents Antonio Concepcion,Lourdes C. Watts and Ida C. Horvat aregrandchildren of the spouses.The deceased spouses ReginoConcepcion, Sr. and ConcepcionFamador had seven children namely:Jose (father of respondents AntonioConcepcion, Lourdes Wattsand Ida Horvat), Jesus (father ofpetitioners Betty Concepcion and JimmyConcepcion), Maria, Vicente,Regino, Jr. (father of petitioners RosarioVda. de Concepcionand Jernie Concepcion), Elena andEmmanuel. During their marriage, thecouple acquired real properties Regino,Sr. died in 1944. Ten (10) years later orin 1954, his wife, Concepcion Famador,

also passed away. Upon the lattersdeath, she left a willdisposing of all herparaphernal properties as well as hershare in the conjugal partnership ofgains.

The will was subjected to probate inSpecial Proceedings No. 1257-R of the


9/11

then Court of First Instance of CebuCity. Jose, one of the sons of the latespouses and father of theherein respondents, contested theprobate on the ground that thedisposition made therein impaired hislegitime.

Eventually, the will was allowedprobate. However, on July 6, 1960, theprobate court motu proprio dismissedthe probate proceedings because Jesus,as the estates executor, neglected toperform his duties after the will wasprobated.Consequently, the probate court was notable to adjudicate to the heirs their

respective shares in the estate.On account thereof, Jose filed acomplaint for partition with damagesagainst his six (6) brothers and sistersbefore the then Court of First Instanceof Cebu which rendered a decision:

Ordering defendants Regino, Jesus andEmmanuel Concepcion to contributeproportionately to the completion ofplaintiffs legitime.

The decision became final and executoryas no appeal was taken therefrom by theherein petitioners.

Inasmuch as the herein respondentshave not yet complied with theaforementioned August 10, 1978decision of CFI-Cebu, Branch XIII, thesame court issued an Order dated 27May 1987, directing its branch sheriffCandido A. Gadrinab to execute a deed

of conveyance covering the Zuluetaproperty in favor of Jose. Complyingwith the above, Sheriff Gadrinabexecuted aDeed of Conveyance over the Zuluetaproperty in favor of Jose.

Unfortunately, when Jose presented the

same deed for registration, the Registerof Deeds required him to surrender theowners duplicate copy of TCT No. T-52227 covering the Zulueta property,which title was then in the possession ofthe petitioners. Despite demands,petitionersrefused delivery of the title.

Hence, Jose filed with the RegionalTrial Court at CebuCity, Branch V, then sitting as a landregistration court, a Petition for theCancellation of TCT No. T-52227. Inan Order dated January 22, 1988, saidcourt granted Joses petition.

It is petitioners thesis that the cadastralcourt (RTC,Cebu City, Branch V), had no authorityto order the surrender and/or deliveryto the respondents of the owners copyof TCT No. T-52227 covering theZulueta property, because the parcel ofland subject thereof had been devised tothem by their common ascendant, thelate Concepcion Famador, asindicated in her will.

Issue:whether or not the Court ofAppeals erred in dismissing petitionersappeal in CA-G.R.CV 28665, thereby effectively sustainingthe cadastralcourts order dated January 22, 1988?

Held:We resolve the issue in the affirmative.By issuing its order of May 27, 1987,

RTC-Cebu, BranchXIII, sought to amend its August 10,1978 decision. We must emphasize,however, that there is nothing in theAugust 10, 1978 decision of said courtwhich authorizes the surrender and/ordelivery of the title covering the Zuluetaproperty. It merely required the


10/11

defendants therein to contributeproportionately to the completion of theplaintiff s legitime.

The subsequent issuance of the orderdated May 27, 1987which amends the final and executorydecision dated August 10, 1978 cannotbe allowed. We have repeatedly heldthat a judgment that has become finaland executorycan no longer be amended or correctedexcept for clericalerrors and mistakes. This rule holdstrue regardless ofwhether the modification is to be madeby the magistrate

who rendered the judgment or by anappellate tribunalwhich reviewed the same.11 Doubtless,then, the order datedMay 27, 1987 of RTC-Cebu, BranchXIII, in Civil Case No.R-13850 is a nullity.And because a spring cannot rise higherthan its source,it follows that the cadastral courtsorder of January 22,

1988 which merely seeks to implementthe earlier void orderdated May 27, 1987 in Civil Case No. R-13850 is infectedwith the same nullity

VI. Lis Pendens

Section 76.Notice of lis pendens.Noaction to recover possession of realestate, or to quiet title thereto, or toremove clouds upon the title thereof, or

for partition, or other proceedings ofany kind in court directly affecting thetitle to land or the use or occupationthereof or the buildings thereon, and nojudgment, and no proceeding to vacateor reverse any judgment, shall have anyeffect upon registered land as againstpersons other than the parties thereto,

unless a memorandum or notice statingthe institution of such action orproceeding and the court wherein thesame is pending, as well as the date ofthe institution thereof, together with areference to the number of thecertificate of title, and an adequatedescription of the land affected and theregistered owner thereof, shall havebeen filed and registered.

Section 77.Cancellation of lispendens.Before final judgment, a noticeof lis pendens may be canceled uponorder of the court, after proper showingthat the notice is for the purpose ofmolesting the adverse party, or that it is

not necessary to protect the rights ofthe party who caused it to be registered.It may also be canceled by the Registerof Deeds upon verified petition of theparty who caused the registrationthereof.

At any time after final judgment infavor of the defendant, or otherdisposition of the action such as toterminate finally all rights of the

plaintiff in and to the land and/orbuildings involved, in any case in whicha memorandum or notice of lis pendenshas been registered as provided in thepreceding section, the notice of lispendens shall be deemed canceled uponthe registration of a certificate of theclerk of court in which the action orproceeding was pending stating themanner of disposal thereof.

Section 14.Notice of lis pendens.In anaction affecting the title or the right ofpossession of real property, the plaintiffand the defendant, when affirmativerelief is claimed in his answer, mayrecord in the office of the registry ofdeeds of the province in which theproperty is situated notice of thependency of the action. Said notice shall


11/11

contain the names of the parties and theobject of the action or defense, and adescription of the property in thatprovince affected thereby. Only from thetime of filing such notice for record shalla purchaser, or encumbrancer of theproperty affected thereby, be deemed tohave constructive notice of thependency of the action, and only of itspendency against the parties designatedby their real names.

The notice of lis pendenshereinabovementioned may be cancelled only uponorder of the court, after proper showingthat the notice is for the purpose ofmolesting the adverse party, or that it is

not necessary to protect the rights ofthe rights of the party who caused it tobe recorded. (24a, R-14)

LTD Syllabus Reviewer

Documents

Transcript of LTD Syllabus Reviewer