G.R. No. 214934 - PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, VS. JOVEN L. NGO, AS REPRESENTED BY OSCAR J. GARCIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, a Certificate of Sale [25] was issued in his favor, which was likewise registered and annotated [26] on TCT No. T-800 on January 27, 2009. According to respondent, it was only on May 9, 2008 that he discovered petitioner's claimed interest over the subject property when he saw the latter's Notice of Lis Pendens in TCT No. T-800 under Entry No. 9405. [27] In view of the said averments, respondent contended that Entry No. 9405 should be removed. He maintained that petitioner was aware of the real estate mortgage that was annotated on TCT No. T-800 in his favor as early as July 24, 2007 and that petitioner may no longer recover the subject property, considering that Bautista had lost ownership thereof when it was sold at a public auction and a certificate of sale was issued in respondent's favor. [28] On February 11, 2010, TCT No. T-1322748 [29] was issued in his name with Entry No. 9405 carried over as an annotation. In its opposition to LRC Case No. 1117-09 , [30] petitioner countered that respondent was not a mortgagee in good faith, having knowledge of the sale of the subject property to petitioner as early as November 2007 or even prior to the foreclosure proceedings. [31] Likewise, asserting that the petition for cancellation of the notice lis pendens should have been filed instead in Civil Case No. 2031-08 and not in a land registration case where the RTC exercised limited jurisdiction, petitioner moved for the consolidation of Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09 . [32] In an Order [33] dated February 24, 2010, the RTC denied petitioner's motion to consolidate Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09 , holding that while both cases involved the same property and, as such, would adversely affect their respective claims, the former case had already been dismissed in an Order dated February 23, 2010. [34] Thereafter, on November 3, 2010, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens [35] praying for the cancellation of Entry No. 9405 carried over to TCT No. T-1322748. Petitioner opposed the said urgent motion [36] and reiterated its prayer for the consolidation of Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09 . [37] In an Omnibus Order [38] dated April 7, 2011 (April 7, 2011 Omnibus Order), the RTC denied respondent's motion for being premature and for lack of legal basis, and instead, ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. 2031-08 and LRC Case No. 1117-09 . The RTC ruled that while it had initially denied the consolidation, it was premised on an order of dismissal that was subsequently set aside. [39] In this regard, the RTC opined that the consolidation was necessary in order to fully adjudicate the issues of the two cases, noting that the outcome in Civil Case No. 2031-08 would adversely affect LRC Case No. 1117-09 which involved the same subject property; conversely, a decision in the latter case would pre-empt the outcome of the former case. Further, the RTC ruled that Civ