G.R. No. 255934 - DEANNA DU, VS. RONALD A. ORTILE[.] IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY AND REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY OF MANILA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED . [11] Petitioner Du filed an MR, which the CA denied in its Resolution [12] dated February 10, 2021. Hence the present Petition. The Court issued its Resolution [13] dated March 2, 2022, requiring respondents to file their comment. Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their Comment [14] dated April 26, 2022. The Issues The Petition states the following issues to be resolved: Whether the CA erred in ruling that in the annotation of the notice of lis pendens , the registered owner should be impleaded as a party. Whether the CA erred in holding that there was no proof that the registered owners are one and the same person and that Melissa Principe is the sole heir of the registered owner. [15] The Court's Ruling The Petition lacks merit. Regarding the first issue, petitioner Du reiterates in her present Petition the arguments that she raised before the CA. She argues that nowhere in Section 76 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529 [16] is it required that the registered owner be impleaded as a party before a notice of lis pendens can be annotated. [17] She avers that the notice of lis pendens is merely an extrajudicial incident to constructively advise or warn all people who deal with the property of the pendency of the case affecting title thereto. [18] She cites Voluntad v. Spouses Dizon [19] ( Voluntad ) wherein this Court considered and allowed the annotation of the notice of lis pendens even if the registered owners were not parties to the subject litigation. [20] The CA rejected these arguments of petitioner Du. As to its purpose, the CA stated that a notice of lis pendens is filed for the purpose of warning all persons that the title to a certain property is in litigation and that if they purchase the same, they are in danger of being bound by an adverse judgment; and that this is necessary in order to save innocent third persons from any involvement in any future litigation concerning the property. [21] The CA also noted that lis pendens has been conceived to protect the real rights of the party causing the registration thereof since such party could rest secure that he/she would not lose the property or any part thereof with the lis pendens duly recorded. [22] As to its effect, the CA acknowledged that a notice of lis pendens neither affects the merits of a case nor creates a right or a lien, being an extrajudicial incident in an action and a constructive advice or warning to all people who deal with the property that they so deal at their own risk, and whatever rights they may acquire in the property in any voluntary transaction are subject to the results of the action. [23] Nonetheless, the CA conceded that even if the notice of lis pendens would not create a right or lien over the property, it will definitely be an inconvenience or a burden, however slight, on the title of the registered owner. [24] The CA concluded that justice and fair play requi