This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-02-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In 1976 Investco, Inc. (Investco) entered into a contract to sell to Solid Homes, Inc. (Solid Homes) certain properties in Quezon City and in Marikina City. But, because Solid Homes defaulted in payments, Investco sued for specific performance and damages. During the pendency of the action, Investco sold the properties to the Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefits Association, Inc. (AFPMBAI). Following full payment of the consideration of the sale, the Register of Deeds issued new certificates of title to AFPMBAI covering the properties.[1] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| A notice of lis pendens[22] is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the said property.[23] The filing of a notice of lis pendens charges all strangers with a notice of the particular litigation referred to therein and, therefore, any right they may thereafter acquire on the property is subject to the eventuality of the suit.[24] 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.[25] | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In their Reply, petitioners reiterate their arguments and cited AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals[18] where it was held that a notice of lis pendens may be annotated only where there is an action or proceeding in court which affects title to or possession of real property. They further maintain that the requirement of prior hearing was sufficiently complied with in this case and petitioners did not act in bad faith when she sold the subject property pending the outcome of this case since there was no outstanding injunction or restraining order which would have prevented her from doing so.[19] | |||||