FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 189508. March 18, 2021.]
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.REBECCA I. MENJU and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 18, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 189508 (UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, v. REBECCA I. MENJU and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents). — Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed on September 18, 2009 at the instance of Union Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank), seeking the review of the: (1) Decision promulgated on March 13, 2009; 2 and (2) Resolution promulgated on July 9, 2009, 3 both of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101415, whereby the CA reversed the April 17, 2007 Order 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. LP-06-0162 granting the Motion to Cancel Notice of Lis Pendens.
The Antecedents
Private respondent Rebecca I. Menju (Menju) was the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Blk. 19, Lot 17, Tourmaline Street, Royal Estates, Pulanglupa Dos, Las Piñas City under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-73522 (subject property). 5 On September 10, 2003, Menju obtained a loan from Merielle Z. Neri (Neri) in the amount P1,400,000.00 with the subject property as security. They executed a Real Estate Mortgage involving the subject property. Menju, however, failed to pay the loan. 6
Months later, Neri presented a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Menju in her favor, together with the original owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-73522 before the Registry of Deeds of Las Piñas City. Accordingly, TCT No. T-75322 was canceled and a new title, TCT No. T-90610, was issued under Neri's name. 7
Subsequently, Neri instituted an ejectment case against Menju. The court ruled in favor of Neri and ordered Menju to vacate the subject property. 8
Aggrieved, Menju filed a complaint against Neri for recovery of possession of and title to the property in question before the RTC of Las Piñas, Branch 202. This was docketed as Civil Case No. LP-06-0162. 9 Thereafter, Menju caused the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens under Entry No. 4691-27 at the back of TCT No. T-90610. 10
On February 15, 2007, Neri filed a Motion to Cancel the Notice of Lis Pendens on the ground that the annotation of the lis pendens was made to molest her. Neri averred that prior to the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens, Menju had instituted a complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage, which Menju later on withdrew. Menju also filed a criminal complaint for falsification of real estate mortgage against Neri, which was eventually dismissed by the National Bureau of Investigation. 11
In her comment to the motion, Menju alleged that she caused the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens in the title to protect her right and not merely to molest or harass Neri. She explained that the complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage was erroneously filed by her representative. Thus, she immediately withdrew the complaint. 12
The RTC Ruling
On April 17, 2007, the RTC issued an Order granting Neri's Motion to Cancel Lis Pendens. It was convinced that the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens is an act of harassment on the part of Menju. The trial court explained further that this is evident in the fact that Menju instituted successive cases against Neri. 13 Accordingly, the trial court disposed of the case in this wise:
In view thereof, the Motion to Cancel Lis Pendens filed by defendant Merielle Z. Neri is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Registry of Deeds of Las Piñas City is directed to cancel and/or strike out the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-90610.
SO ORDERED. 14
Aggrieved, Menju filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
Meanwhile, subsequent to the issuance of the April 17, 2007 Order, and while the case was still pending, Neri sold the subject property to Spouses Amelito and Josephine Amar (Sps. Amar). Accordingly, TCT No. 90610 was canceled and a new one, TCT No. T-107974, was issued under the name of Sps. Amar. 15 The new TCT No. T-107974 was free from any lien and/or annotation. Thereafter, Sps. Amar mortgaged the subject property to Union Bank as collateral for the loan they contracted. 16
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 17 promulgated on March 13, 2009, the CA set aside the RTC's Order and ordered the reinstatement of the Notice of Lis Pendens under Entry No. 4691-27 at the back of Neri's Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-90610. The CA likewise directed the Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City to annotate the same Notice of Lis Pendens at the back of TCT No. T-107974, the title of Sps. Amar. Contrary to the findings of the trial court, the CA concluded that Menju validly caused the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens to protect her right over the subject property. The fallo of the assailed Decision reads: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Order dated 17 April 2007 of RTC Branch 202, Las Piñas City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City is directed to REINSTATE the Notice of Lis Pendens under Entry No. 4691-27 at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-90610, registered in the name of Merielle Z. Neri, and to ANNOTATE and RECORD the same Notice of Lis Pendens at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-107974, registered in the names of Amelito Aranda Amar and Josephine Cinco Amar.
SO ORDERED. 18
Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari19 interposing the following errors:
Issues
I.
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARASSING OR MOLESTING MARIELLE NERI, HENCE, ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS;
II.
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED THE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS ANNOTATED ON THE TITLE OF SPS. AMAR WHO ARE INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE THEREBY PREJUDICING THE RIGHTS OF UNION BANK, AN INNOCENT MORTGAGEE FOR VALUE;
III.
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DENIED UNION BANK DUE PROCESS UNION BANK NOT BEING A PARTY TO THE CASE BETWEEN MENJU AND NERI IN THE TRIAL COURT; AND
IV.
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN (A) ITS APPRECIATION OF THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT IS MANIFESTLY CONTRADICTORY AND PREMISED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS; AND (B) ITS ASSAILED ORDERS ARE CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE. 20
The Court's Ruling
At the outset, it is noteworthy that Union Bank availed of the wrong mode of appeal in bringing its case before this Court.
Settled is the rule that the appeal from a final disposition of the CA is a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 45 is clear that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. 21 This is in line with another established rule "that one of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion." 22
In the instant case, after receipt of the CA assailed Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, Union Bank filed before this Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court instead of a petition for review under Rule 45, the latter being the proper remedy prescribed by the rules.
"At any rate, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, this Court has before treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly (1) if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules." 23 The instant case, however, does not fall within the ambit of any of these instances warranting relaxation of the rules.
To recall, a petition for review under Rule 45 may be filed only with 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. The Court may, however, for justifiable reasons grant an extension of 30 days only within which to file a petition. 24
In the case at bench, the instant petition was filed exactly 60 days from notice of the CA Resolution denying Union Bank's motion for reconsideration. While a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be timely filed within that period, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, if filed 60 days from notice of the assailed decision or resolution, is deemed filed out of time. Hence, it is considered a mere scrap of paper.
On this ground alone, the instant petition is dismissible.
Setting aside such procedural defect, the petition should be dismissed for it had become moot and academic.
A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which Union Bank would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. 25 This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. 26
The ultimate prayer in the instant petition is the cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens ordered by the CA to be reinstated and/or annotated at the back of the TCT No. T-90610 in the name of Neri, as well as at the back of TCT No. T-107974, the title of Sps. Amar. aScITE
To recall, Entry No. 4691-27 at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-90610 was annotated after Menju instituted a complaint for recovery of possession of and title to the subject property against Neri. This was validly made considering that a Notice of Lis Pendens, as characterized by this Court:
x x x [I]s an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the said property. The filing of a notice of lis pendens charges all strangers with notice of the particular litigation referred to therein and, therefore, any right they may thereafter acquire over the property is subject to the eventuality of the suit. Such announcement is founded upon public policy and necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. 27 (Citation omitted.)
Entry No. 4691-27 at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-90610, therefore, is necessary to inform the whole world that Civil Case No. LP-06-0162 for recovery of possession of and title to the subject property is pending and the subject of a controversy between Menju and Neri. This Court is likewise of the impression that the Notice of Lis Pendens was annotated at the back of the title not to harass Neri but to protect Menju's purported right over the subject property.
Corollarily, the validity of the Notice of Lis Pendens depends on the existence and/or pendency of Civil Case No. LP-06-0162 for the recovery of possession of and title to the subject property. Otherwise stated, lis pendens may lie only where there is an action or proceeding in court, which affects title to, or possession of real property. 28 As records would show, however, Civil Case No. LP-06-0162 had now been decided with finality.
In a Manifestation 29 dated May 23, 2017 filed by Menju, she informed the Court that the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 89713 had affirmed with finality the Decision of RTC Branch 202, Las Piñas City, which in turn, dismissed Menju's complaint for recovery of possession of and title to the subject property. The Entry of Judgment, as cited in the Manifestation reads:
This is to certify that on July 20, 2011, a Decision rendered in the above-entitled case was filed in this Office, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision dated September 7, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 202 in Civil Case No. 06-0162 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
And that the same has, on September 16, 2011 become final and executor[y] and is hereby recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. 30
With the dismissal of the complaint for recovery of possession of and title to the subject property attaining finality, there is no longer any action or proceeding in court, which affects the title to or possession of the subject property. Thus, any annotation of Notice of Lis Pendens on the titles of Neri and Sps. Amar should be cancelled and struck out. Simply put, Entry No. 4691-27, if annotated or reinstated in the back of the titles of Neri and Sps. Amar, has no more factual and legal bases.
In sum, this Court holds and so rules that the present petition has been rendered moot and academic by the finality of the decision in the complaint for recovery of possession of and title to the subject property.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant petition is DISMISSED on the ground of mootness.
In view of the finality of the dismissal of the complaint for recovery of possession of and title to the subject property docketed as Civil Case No. LP-06-0162, the Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City is directed to CANCEL Entry No. 4691-27 at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-90610 and TCT No. T-107974. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-30.
2.Id. at 35-49. Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a Retired Member of this Court) and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring.
3.Id. at 50-52.
4.Id. at 36.
5.Id. at 36.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 37.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 37-38.
10.Id. at 38.
11.Id. at 38-39.
12.Id. at 39-40.
13.Id. at 40-41.
14.Id. at 36.
15.Id. at 41.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 35-39.
18.Id. at 48.
19.Id. at 3-30.
20.Id. at 12-13.
21.Macasasa v. Sicad, 524 Phil. 673, 683 (2006) citing National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 362, 371 (1999).
22.People v. Ting, G.R. No. 221505, December 5, 2018, citing Asistio v. People, 758 Phil. 485, 496-497 (2015).
23.Phil. Spring Water Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 736 Phil. 305, 316 (2014).
24. Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
25.Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 728 Phil. 535, 540 (2014).
26.Id.
27.Lu v. Lu Ym, Sr., 612 Phil. 390, 405 (2009).
28.Spouses Dino v. Court of Appeals, 288 Phil. 306, 315 (1992).
29.Rollo, pp. 246-248.
30.Id. at 247.