SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257052. September 13, 2021.]
MARILOU TRAYVILLA, SPS. LORENZO NEMIADA AND SALLY PAGUNTALAN, FLORENTINO PASTOLERO, REPRESENTING HIS WIFE ROMANA NEMIADA, IMELDA NEMIADA, AGUSTIN NEMIADA, PLACIDO NEMIADA, ROSARIO NEMIADA, MILAGROS NEMIADA VDA. DE NARIA, AND GLORIA VDA. DE NEMIADA, REPRESENTING HER LATE SPOUSE ANDRES NEMIADA, petitioners,vs. ATILANO FILLONE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257052 (Marilou Trayvilla, Sps. Lorenzo Nemiada and Sally Paguntalan, Florentino Pastolero, representing his wife Romana Nemiada, Imelda Nemiada, Agustin Nemiada, Placido Nemiada, Rosario Nemiada, Milagros Nemiada vda. De Naria, and Gloria vda. De Nemiada, representing her late spouse Andres Nemiada v. Atilano Fillone). — After a judicious review of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated December 11, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated June 15, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 05562 for failure of petitioners Marilou Trayvilla, Sps. Lorenzo Nemiada and Sally Paguntalan, Florentino Pastolero, representing his wife Romana Nemiada, Imelda Nemiada, Agustin Nemiada, Placido Nemiada, Rosario Nemiada, Milagros Nemiada vda. De Naria, and Gloria vda. De Nemiada, representing her late spouse Andres Nemiada (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the Decision 4 dated April 25, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Guimbal, Iloilo, Branch 67 (RTC) finding that respondent Atilano Fillone (respondent) was the true and lawful owner of Lot No. 1037, in whose favor Free Patent No. (VI-5) 15624 and Original Certificate of Title No. F-30064 5 covering the same had been issued, and ordering the cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens6 annotated thereon on the basis of the letter-protest 7 by petitioners before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region VI, Western Visayas (DENR), seeking the annulment of respondent's free patent and certificate of title on the grounds of Fraud, Deceit, and/or Serious Misrepresentation.
As correctly ruled by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the Notice of Lis Pendens annotated on respondent's certificate of title should be cancelled as it is not necessary to protect the rights of petitioners, 8 considering that their letter-protest before the DENR was filed only in 1998, or thirteen (13) years after the registration of respondent's certificate of title. The Court has held in prior cases that the order or decision granting an application for free patent can be reviewed only within one (1) year from its issuance on the ground of actual Fraud via a petition for review in the RTC, provided that no innocent purchaser for value has acquired the property or any interest thereon. While an aggrieved party may still file an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust, the right of action prescribes in ten (10) years counted from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property, again provided that it has not been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value. Such 10-year prescriptive period applies if the person claiming ownership is not in possession of the subject property; otherwise, the right to seek reconveyance does not prescribe. 9 Here, as the courts a quo are consistent in their finding that respondent and his heirs are the owners and possessors of the subject property, it would appear, despite the pendency of petitioners' letter-protest before the DENR, that their right of action to claim Lot No. 1037 covered by respondent's free patent and certificate of title had already prescribed. As such, the courts a quo did not err in granting the latter's prayer to quiet his title and in cancelling the Notice of Lis Pendens annotated on his certificate of title. AIDSTE
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated July 19, 2021; rollo, pp. 7-28.
2.Id. at 53-69. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and Lorenza Redulla Bordios, concurring.
3.Id. at 79-80. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Lorenza Redulla Bordios and Bautista G. Corpin, Jr., concurring.
4.Id. at 43-50. Penned by Judge Domingo D. Diamante.
5.Id. at 129.
6.Id. at 132.
7.Id. at 130-131.
8. Section 14, Rule 13 of the RULES OF COURT, now Section 19 per 2019 AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF COURT provides:
'Section 19. Notice of lis pendens. — In an action affecting the title or the right of possession of real property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative relief is claimed in his or her answer, may record in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the action. Said notice shall contain the names of the parties and the object of the action or defense, and a description of the property in that province affected thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be deemed to have constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against the parties designated by their real names.
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded. (14a)'
Section 77 of PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529 states:
'Section 77. Cancellation of lis pendens. — Before final judgment, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be registered. It may also be cancelled by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who caused the registration thereof.'
9.Luna v. Luna, 610 Phil. 196, 202 (2009). See also Heirs of Maximo Sanjorjo v. Heirs of Manuel Quijano, 489 Phil. 722 (2005); Narcise v. Valbueco, Inc., 813 Phil. 923, 929 (2017).