VS. ANASTACIA B. SANTARIN

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss embodied as affirmative defense based on lack of cause of action, is hereby Denied for lack of merit, based solely on the Amended Complaint which clearly alleges in express terms the cause of action against defendant Estrella C. Pabalan; that her title derived as mortgagee and purchaser at auction sale is void ab initio because it proceeds from an equally void title of other defendants who allegedly derived title through a falsified signature of plaintiff as vendor in the original first sale because the affirmative defense of innocent purchaser for value is a defense which begs for evidentiary matters, the proper place for which should be in the trial on the merits of this case. [6] Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. Again, she lost as her petition was dismissed on November 23, 2001.Her motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on May 13, 2002. In its decision, the Court of Appeals held: If the . . . allegations of the Amended Complaint, . . . . are proven, then as alleged [therein] . . . the conveyances which preceded the extrajudicial foreclosure, including that made to mortgagor TRI-LITE, would be null and void. There would thus be no property which TRI-LITE could encumber which would eventually be sold to petitioner at public auction. [7] While petitioner Pabalans petition was pending in the Court of Appeals, private respondent Santarin filed a Third Amended Complaint impleading as additional defendants her daughter Annielita Santarin Villaluna, the respective spouses of the defendant officers of TRI-LITE and other individuals whom she claimed to have connived with the latter in the transfer of her property. In this petition, petitioner contends that ¾ I. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT A QUO (AND THE AMENDMENTS THERETO) INDICATING THE SUPPOSED PARTICIPATION OF PETITIONER IN THE PURPORTED FRAUD THEREIN ALLEGED, THE PRESUMPTION THAT PETITIONER IS AN INNOCENT MORTGAGEE (AND LATER PURCHASER) FOR VALUE AND IN GOOD FAITH BECOMES CONCLUSIVE AND INCONTROVERTIBLE. II. HAVING FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT A QUO (AND THE AMENDMENTS THERETO), THE INSTANT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE COURT A QUO AND THE COURT OF APPEALS. III. THE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENT IS AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FRAUD AND NOT THE CANCELLATION OF TRI-LITE REALTYS TITLES TO THE PREJUDICE OF PETITIONER WHO IS AN INNOCENT MORTGAGEE (LATER PURCHASER) FOR VALUE AND IN GOOD FAITH. IV. CONSIDERING THAT THE COMPLAINT A QUO (AND THE AMENDMENTS THERETO) FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER, RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS REQUIRING PROTECTION IN THE FORM OF A RECORDED NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS . THE SAID NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE CANCELLED. V. EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT RESPONDENT HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER TO PROSECUTE THE COMPLAINT A QUO , JURISDICTION OVER