Spous pouse es Tomas and and Jose Josefi fina na Sori oriano ano execu xecute ted d a Deed of Assignment over three (3) parcels of land in favor of the Oro Devel Develop opmen mentt Corpo Corporat ration ion in payme payment nt for their their susc suscrip riptio tion n of stoc!s in the said company" #y virtue of such deed$ ODC sold the parcels of land to St$ %ary &ood School$ 'nc"$ the petitioners" Severa Seve rall year years s af afte terr$ ila ilari rio o So Sori rian ano$ o$ on one e of the the so sons ns of the the spous pouse es$ ho is also lso the priv priva ate resp respo onde ndent in thi this cas ase e$ discovered that the signature of Tomas Soriano on the Deed of Assi As sign gnme ment nt as as fo forg rged ed"" Civi Civill Case Case *o" *o" +3,+3,-. . as as file filed d and and *otices of /is 0endens ere annotated on the titles of the su1ect parcels" Decision as rendered y the 2TC dismissing dismissing the civil case on the asi asis s of the the Join Jointt Af Affi fida davi vitt date dated d 4 July July ,,+ ,,+ exe execute cuted d y petiti petitione onerr %arcia %arciall 0" Sorian Soriano$ o$ here here it appear appears s that that the other other individual defendants in the civil case$ and private respondent$ recogni5ed and ac!noledged the validity$ legality and propriety of the transfer of the su1ect properties from Tomas 6" Soriano to ODC" 0riva 0rivate te respon responde dent nt filed filed a motio motion n for recons reconside iderat ration ion ut as as denied" 0etiti tition oner er7s 7s re8u re8ues estt fo forr the the ca canc ncel ella lati tion on of the the no noti tice ce of lis lis pendens through a motion as granted"
0rivate respondent appealed to the CA and re8uested for the re9 instatement of the *otice of /is 0endens hich the appellate court granted" 0etitioner$ ithout filing motion for reconsideration efore the CA$ filed a petition for certiorari"
ISSUE:
&hether the Court of Appeals gravely aused its discretion hen it ordered the re9annotation of the *otice of /is 0endens 0endens ased on the mere motion filed y private respondent$ respondent$ as it as violative of the proper procedures prescried under 0residential Decree *o" -:,;
RULING:
Section <" 0rocedure" &hen the 2egister of Deeds is in dout ith regard to the proper step to e ta!en or memorandum to e made in pursuance of any deed$ mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration$ or here any party in interest does not agree ith the action ta!en y the 2egister of Deeds ith ith refe refere renc nce e to any any such such inst instru rume ment nt$$ the the 8ues 8uesti tion on shal shalll e sum sumit itte ted d to the the Comm Commis issi sion oner er of /a /and nd 2egi 2egist stra rati tion on y the the 2egister of Deeds$ or y the party in interest thru the 2egister of Deeds" &her &here e the the inst instru rume ment nt is deni denied ed regi regist stra rati tion on$$ the the 2egi 2egist ster er of Deeds shall notify the interested party in riting$ setting forth the defe defect cts s of the the inst instru rume ment nt or lega legall grou ground nds s reli relied ed upon upon$$ and and
advising him that if he is not agreeale to such ruling$ he may$ ithout ithdraing the documents from the 2egistry$ elevate the matter y consulta ithin five days from receipt of notice of the denial of registration to the Commissioner of /and 2egistration" The 2egister of Deeds shall ma!e a memorandum of the pending consulta on the certificate of title hich shall e canceled motu proprio y the 2egister of Deeds after final resolution or decision thereof$ or efore resolution$ if ithdran y petitioner" The Commissioner of /and 2egistration$ considering the consulta and the records certified to him after notice to the parties and hearing$ shall enter an order prescriing the step to e ta!en or memorandum to e made" is resolution or ruling in consultas shal shalll e co conc nclu lusi sive ve and and ind indin ing g upon upon all all 2egi 2egist ster ers s of Deed Deeds$ s$ provided$ that the party in interest ho disagrees ith the final reso resolu luti tion on$$ ruli rulin ng or orde orderr of the the Comm Commis issi sion oner er rela relati tive ve to consultas may appeal to the Court of Appeals ithin the period and in the manner provided in 2epulic Act *o" -.3." 't is clear that the afore98uoted procedure applies only hen the instr instrum ument ent is alread already y presen presented ted for regist registrat ration ion and= and= () the 2egister of Deeds is in dout ith regard to the proper step to e ta!en or memorandum to e made in pursuance of any deed$ mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration> or (:) here any party in interest does not agree ith the action ta!e ta !en n y the the 2egi 2egist ster er of Deed Deeds s it ith refe refere renc nce e to any any such such instr instrum ument ent>> and (3) hen hen the regist registra ratio tion n is denie denied" d" *one *one of these situations is present in this case" There as no evidence that the 4 August :++? 2esolution of the Court of Appeals as already presented to the 2egister of Deeds of %a!ati City for the re9annotation of the *otice of /is 0endens" There is also no shoing that the 2egister of Deeds denied the re9annotation"
