Makilito Mahinay v. Hon. Ireneo Lee Gako, Jr., RTC Cebu, and Jocelyn Sorensen | Sorensen v.

MahinayGR
o. !"#$$% | ove&ber '%, '(!! | )el Castillo*acts+

Mahinay filed complaint for spec. perf. against owners of Cebu lot to compel them to convey the lot to
him. Healleged that in an earlier case, they had a comp. agr. where he would be given preferential right
to buy part of the lot onthe condition that he withdraws the case, but instead they sold the entire lot to
Suarez without offering to Mahinay.During pendency of case, Mahinay filed an ex parte manifestation
and motion informing !"C he caused #otice of $is%endens on "C" on &ugust '(, '))*. +$and was later
mortgaged to Sorensen !"C- /0 Mahinay. C& affirmed !"C.So Mahinay filed omnibus motion to
compel owners to vacate property and turn over owner1s copy of "C" to him.!"C- granted motion, but
upon opposition of Sorensen +mortgage holder , denied Mahinay1s motion to compel Sorensento
produce and turn over to him the owners copy of the "C". "his prompted Mahinay to file !23 4 SC so !"C
grantedmotion /0 Mahinay. Sorensen went to C& but C& dismissed petition.

Issue+

5o# Sorensen has superior right to remain in custody of the owner1s copy of the "C"Sorensen- as an
innocent mortgagee for value, she has the superior right to remain in custody of the owner1s copy of
the"C". She insists that she merely relied on the four corners of said "C" which at the time of the
transaction did not containany annotation of lis pendens.

Held+

#o. 5e are not impressed. "rue, when a mortgagee relies upon what appears on the face of a "orrens
title andlends money in all 6/ on the basis of the title in the name of the mortgagor, only thereafter to
learn that the latter1s titlewas defective, being thus an innocent mortgagee for value, his or her right or
lien upon the land mortgaged must berespected and protected. "he rationale for this ruling is, if the rule
were otherwise public confidence in the certificate oftitle would be impaired as everyone dealing with
property registered under the "orrens system would have to in7uire onthe regularity of its
issuance. C&8- Mahinay1s #otice of $is %endens was duly annotated on the original copy of the "C" as
early as &ugust '(, '))*.!9M to Sorensen was executed only on 0ctober :(, '))* and inscribed at the bac; of
said title only on the following day,0ctober :<, '))*. "he prior registration of Mahinay1s #otice of $is
%endens bound the whole world, including Sorensen. tcharged her with notice that the land being
offered to her as security for the loan is under litigation and that whateverrights she may ac7uire
by virtue of the !eal 9state Mortgage are sub=ect to the outcome of the case. More importantly, italso
gave Mahinay a preferential right over subse7uent liens and encumbrances annotated on the title. t
is settled that inthis =urisdiction the maxim prior est in tempore, potior est in =ure +he who is first in
time is preferred in right is followed inland registration. Having registered his instrument ahead of
Sorensen1s !9M, Mahinays #otice of $is %endens ta;esprecedence over the !9M. "he claim of Sorensen
that the owner1s copy of the "C" does not contain any adverse annotation at the time the
ownerstransacted with her is of no moment. 8eing in the nature of involuntary registration, the
annotation of the #otice of $is%endens on the original copy of the "C" on file with the !D is sufficient to
bind third parties. t affects the whole worldeven if the owners copy does not contain the same
annotation.%etition dismissed for being M&&. %etition denied, C& affirmed
VDA. DE JOMOC V. CA (August 02, 1991)

FACTS:
A parcel of land in CDO owned by late Pantaleon Jomoc was fictitiously sold to third persons in which the
last transferee are the spouses Mariano and Maria So. Maria Vda de Jomoc filed suit to recover the
property and won.

While pending appeal, Vda de Jomoc executed executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale of
Land with private respondent for P300,000.00. The document was not yet signed by all the parties nor
notarized but in the meantime, Maura So had made partial payments amounting to P49,000.00.

So demanded from the heirs of Jomoc for the execution of final deed of conveyance but the latter did no
comply. As such, So filed a civil case and a notice of lis pendens were placed in the title of the land.

On the same date, the heirs of Jomoc executed another extra-judicial settlement with absolute sale in
favor of intervenors Lim Leong Kang and Lim Pue claiming that they believe that So already backed-out
from the agreement.

ISSUE:
WON the sale is enforceable.

HELD:
Since petitioners admit the existence of the extra-judicial settlement, the court finds that there was
meeting of the minds between the parties and hence, there is a valid contract that has been partly
executed.

The contract of sale of real property even if not complete in form, so long as the essential requisites of
consent of the contracting parties, object, and cause of the obligation concur and they were clearly
established to be present, is valid and effective as between the parties. Public document is only needed
to bind third persons.

The payment made by So is a clear proof of her intention to acquire the property and the petitioners
cannot claim about the respondent backing out. The sale to the intervenors Lim cannot be recognized
because when they bought the property, there was already a notice of lis pendens and the sale cannot be
said to be in good faith.