THIRD DIVISION reconsideration was denied in another

resolution dated March 25, 1983, which also

G.R. No. 81163 September 26, 1988 stated that the denial is final. This decision in
G.R. No. 62042, in accordance with the
EDUARDO S. BARANDA and ALFONSO entry of judgment, became final on March
HITALIA, petitioners, 25, 1983. The petitioners in the instant case
vs. G.R. No. 64432--contend that the writs of
HONORABLE JUDGE TITO GUSTILO, ACTING possession and demolition issued in the
REGISTER OF DEEDS AVITO SACLAUSO, HONORABLE respondent court should now be
COURT OF APPEALS, and ATTY. HECTOR P. implemented; that Civil Case No. 00827
TEODOSIO, respondents. before the Intermediate Appellate Court was
filed only to delay the implementation of the
writ; that counsel for the respondent should
Eduardo S. Baranda for petitioners.
be held in contempt of court for engaging in
a concerted but futile effort to delay the
Rico & Associates for private respondents. execution of the writs of possession and
demolition and that petitioners are entitled to
damages because of prejudice caused by
the filing of this petition before the
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: Intermediate Appellate Court. On September
26, 1983, this Court issued a Temporary
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia were the petitioners in G.R. No. 64432 and Restraining Order ' to maintain the status
the private respondents in G.R. No. 62042. The subject matter of these two (2)
cases and the instant case is the same — a parcel of land designated as Lot No. quo, both in the Intermediate Appellate
4517 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta. Barbara, Iloilo covered by Original Certificate of Court and in the Regional Trial Court of
Title No. 6406. Iloilo. Considering that (l)there is merit in the
instant petition for indeed the issues
The present petition arose from the same facts and events discussed in G.R. No. 64432 as raised in
which triggered the filing of the earlier petitions. These facts Civil Case No. 00827 before the respondent
and events are cited in our resolution dated December 29, court have already been passed upon in
1983 in G.R. No. 64432, as follows: G.R. No. 62042; and (2) the Temporary
Restraining Order issued by the
. . . This case has its origins in a petition for Intermediate Appellate Court was only
reconstitution of title filed with the Court of intended not to render the petition moot and
First Instance of Iloilo involving a parcel of academic pending the Court's consideration
land known as Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. of the issues, the Court RESOLVED to
Barbara Cadastre covered by Original DIRECT the respondent Intermediate
Certificate of Title No. 6406 in the name of Appellate Court not to take cognizance of
Romana Hitalia. Eventually, Original issues already resolved by this Court and
Certificate of Title No. 6406 was cancelled accordingly DISMISS the petition in Civil
and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 106098 Case No. 00827. Immediate implementation
was issued in the names of Alfonso Hitalia of the writs of possession and demolition is
and Eduardo S. Baranda The Court issued a likewise ordered. (pp. 107-108, Rollo —
writ of possession which Gregorio Perez, G.R. No. 64432)
Maria P. Gotera and Susana Silao refused
to honor on the ground that they also have On May 9, 1984, the Court issued a resolution denying with
TCT No. 25772 over the same Lot No. 4517. finality a motion for reconsideration of the December 29,
The Court, after considering the private 1983 resolution in G.R. No. 64432. On this same date,
respondents' opposition and finding TCT No. another resolution was issued, this time in G.R. No. 62042,
25772 fraudulently acquired, ordered that referring to the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo the ex-parte
the writ of possession be carried out. A motion of the private respondents (Baranda and Hitalia) for
motion for reconsideration having been execution of the judgment in the resolutions dated January
denied, a writ of demolition was issued on 7, 1983 and March 9, 1983. In the meantime, the then
March 29, 1982. Perez and Gotera filed a Intermediate Appellate Court issued a resolution dated
petition for certiorari and prohibition with the February 10, 1984, dismissing Civil Case No. 00827 which
Court of Appeals. On August 6, 1982, the covered the same subject matter as the Resolutions above
Court of Appeals denied the petition. Perez cited pursuant to our Resolution dated December 29, 1983.
and Gotera filed the petition for review on The resolution dated December 29, 1983 in G.R. No. 64432
certiorari denominated as G.R. No. 62042 became final on May 20, 1984.
before the Supreme Court. As earlier stated
the petition was denied in a resolution dated
January 7,1983. The motion for
Upon motions of the petitioners, the Regional Trial Court of Gustilo and the acting Register of Deeds
Iloilo, Branch 23 presided by Judge Tito G. Gustilo issued Helen P. Sornito to register the Order dated
the following order: September 5, 1984 of the lower court;

Submitted are the following motions filed by 2. To cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel
movants Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso No.T-106098 and once cancelled to issue
Hitalia through counsel dated August 28, new certificates of title to each of Eduardo S.
1984: Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia;

(a) Reiterating Motion for Execution of Plus other relief and remedies equitable
Judgment of Resolutions dated January 7, under the premises. (p. 473, 64432 Rollo)
1983 and March 9, 1983 Promulgated by
Honorable Supreme Court (First Division) in Acting on these motions, we issued on September 17,1986
G.R. No. 62042; a Resolution in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432
granting the motions as prayed for. Acting on another
(b) Motion for Execution of Judgment of motion of the same nature filed by the petitioners, we issued
Resolution dated December 29, 1983 another Resolution dated October 8, 1986 referring the
Promulgated by Honorable Supreme Court same to the Court Administrator for implementation by the
(First Division) in G.R. No. 64432; judge below.

(c) The Duties of the Register of Deeds are In compliance with our resolutions, the Regional Trial Court
purely ministerial under Act 496, therefore of Iloilo, Branch 23 presided by Judge Tito G. Gustilo issued
she must register all orders, judgment, two (2) orders dated November 6,1986 and January 6,1987
resolutions of this Court and that of respectively, to wit:
Honorable Supreme Court.
ORDER
Finding the said motions meritorious and
there being no opposition thereto, the same This is an Ex-parte Motion and Manifestation
is hereby GRANTED. submitted by the movants through counsel
on October 20, 1986; the Manifestation of
WHEREFORE, Transfer Certificate of Title Atty. Helen Sornito, Register of Deeds of the
No. T-25772 is hereby declared null and City of Iloilo, and formerly acting register of
void and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- deeds for the Province of Iloilo dated
106098 is hereby declared valid and October 23, 1986 and the Manifestation of
subsisting title concerning the ownership of Atty. Avito S. Saclauso, Acting Register of
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia, all Deeds, Province of Iloilo dated November 5,
of Sta. Barbara Cadastre. 1986.

The Acting Register of Deeds of Iloilo is Considering that the motion of movants Atty.
further ordered to register the Subdivision Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia
Agreement of Eduardo S. Baranda and dated August 12, 1986 seeking the full
Alfonso Hitalia as prayed for." (p. 466, implementation of the writ of possession was
Rollo--G.R. No. 64432) granted by the Honorable Supreme Court,
Second Division per its Resolution dated
The above order was set aside on October 8, 1984 upon a September 17,1986, the present motion is
motion for reconsideration and manifestation filed by the hereby GRANTED.
Acting Registrar of Deeds of Iloilo, Atty. Helen P. Sornito, on
the ground that there was a pending case before this Court, WHEREFORE, the Acting Register of
an Action for Mandamus, Prohibition, Injunction under G.R. Deeds, Province of Iloilo, is hereby ordered
No. 67661 filed by Atty. Eduardo Baranda, against the to register the Order of this Court dated
former which remained unresolved. September 5, 1984 as prayed for.

In view of this development, the petitioners filed in G.R. No. xxx xxx xxx
62042 and G.R. No. 64432 ex-parte motions for issuance of
an order directing the Regional Trial Court and Acting ORDER
Register of Deeds to execute and implement the judgments
of this Court. They prayed that an order be issued: This is a Manifestation and Urgent Petition
for the Surrender of Transfer Certificate of
1. Ordering both the Regional Trial Court of Title No. T-25772 submitted by the
Iloilo Branch XXIII, under Hon. Judge Tito G. petitioners Atty. Eduardo S. Baranda and
 Alfonso Hitalia on December 2, 1986, in the decisions to the Regional Trial Court of
compliance with the order of this Court dated Iloilo City for appropriate action and to apply
November 25, 1 986, a Motion for Extension disciplinary sanctions upon whoever
of Time to File Opposition filed by Maria attempts to trifle with the implementation of
Provido Gotera through counsel on the resolutions of this Court. No further
December 4, 1986 which was granted by the motions in these cases will be entertained by
Court pursuant to its order dated December this Court. (p. 615, Rollo-64432)
15, 1986. Considering that no Opposition
was filed within the thirty (30) days period In the meantime, in compliance with the Regional Trial
granted by the Court finding the petition Court's orders dated November 6, 1986 and January 6,
tenable, the same is hereby GRANTED. 1987, Acting Register of Deeds AvitoSaclauso annotated
the order declaring Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25772
WHEREFORE, Maria Provido Gotera is as null and void, cancelled the same and issued new
hereby ordered to surrender Transfer certificates of titles numbers T-111560, T-111561 and T-
Certificate of Title No. T-25772 to this Court 111562 in the name of petitioners Eduardo S. Baranda and
within ten (10) days from the date of this Alfonso Hitalia in lieu of Transfer Certificate of TItle No. T-
order, after which period, Transfer Certificate 106098.
of Title No. T-25772 is hereby declared
annulled and the Register of Deeds of Iloilo However, a notice of lis pendens "on account of or by
is ordered to issue a new Certificate of Title reason of a separate case (Civil Case No. 15871) still
in lieu thereof in the name of petitioners Atty. pending in the Court of Appeals" was carried out and
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia, annotated in the new certificates of titles issued to the
which certificate shall contain a petitioners. This was upheld by the trial court after setting
memorandum of the annulment of the aside its earlier order dated February 12, 1987 ordering the
outstanding duplicate. (pp. 286-287, Rollo cancellation of lis pendens.
64432)
This prompted the petitioners to file another motion in G.R,
On February 9, 1987, Atty. Hector Teodosio, the counsel of No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432 to order the trial court to
Gregorio Perez, private respondent in G.R. No. 64432 and reinstate its order dated February 12, 1987 directing the
petitioner in G.R. No. 62042, filed a motion for explanation Acting Register of Deeds to cancel the notice of lis
in relation to the resolution dated September 17, 1986 and pendens in the new certificates of titles.
manifestation asking for clarification on the following points:
In a resolution dated August 17, 1987, we resolved to refer
a. As to the prayer of Atty. Eduardo Baranda the said motion to the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City,
for the cancellation of TCT T-25772, should Branch 23 for appropriate action.
the same be referred to the Court of Appeals
(as mentioned in the Resolution of Since respondent Judge Tito Gustilo of the Regional Trial
November 27, 1985) or is it already deemed Court of Iloilo, Branch 23 denied the petitioners' motion to
granted by implication (by virtue of the reinstate the February 12, 1987 order in another order dated
Resolution dated September 17, 1986)? September 17, 1987, the petitioners filed this petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
b. Does the Resolution dated September 17, injunction to compel the respondent judge to reinstate his
1986 include not only the implementation of order dated February l2, 1987 directing the Acting Register
the writ of possession but also the of Deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in
cancellation of TCT T-25772 and the the new certificates of titles issued in the name of the
subdivision of Lot 4517? (p. 536, Rollo — petitioners.
4432)
The records show that after the Acting Register of Deeds
Acting on this motion and the other motions filed by the annotated a notice of is pendens on the new certificates of
parties, we issued a resolution dated May 25, 1987 noting titles issued in the name of the petitioners, the petitioners
all these motions and stating therein: filed in the reconstitution case an urgent ex-parte motion to
immediately cancel notice of lis pendens annotated thereon.
xxx xxx xxx
In his order dated February 12, 1987, respondent Judge
Since entry of judgment in G.R. No. 62042 Gustilo granted the motion and directed the Acting Register
was made on January 7, 1983 and in G.R. of Deeds of Iloilo to cancel the lis pendens found on
No. 64432 on May 30, 1984, and all that Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-106098; T-111560; T-
remains is the implementation of our 111561 and T-111562.
resolutions, this COURT RESOLVED to
refer the matters concerning the execution of
Respondent Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso filed a resolutions, respondent Judge Tito Gustilo set aside his
motion for reconsideration of the February 12, 1987 order February 12, 1987 order and granted the Acting Register of
stating therein: Deeds' motion for reconsideration.

That the undersigned hereby asks for a The issue hinges on whether or not the pendency of the
reconsideration of the said order based on appeal in Civil Case No. 15871 with the Court of Appeals
the second paragraph of Section 77 of P.D. prevents the court from cancelling the notice of lis
1529, to wit: pendens in the certificates of titles of the petitioners which
were earlier declared valid and subsisting by this Court in
"At any time after final G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432. A corollary issue is on
judgment in favor of the the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to annotate or
defendant or other annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title.
disposition of the action such
as to terminate finally all Civil Case No. 15871 was a complaint to seek recovery of
rights of the plaintiff in and to Lot No. 4517 of Sta. Barbara Cadastre Iloilo, (the same
the land and/or buildings subject matter of G.R. No 62042 and G.R. No. 64432) from
involved, in any case in petitioners Baranda and Hitalia filed by Calixta Provido,
which a memorandum or Ricardo Provido, Maxima Provido and Perfecta Provido
notice of Lis Pendens has before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23. At the
been registered as provided instance of Atty. Hector P. Teodosio, the Provides' counsel,
in the preceding section, the a notice of is pendens was annotated on petitioners'
notice of Lis Pendens shall Certificate of Title No. T-106098 covering Lot No. 4517, Sta.
be deemed cancelled upon Barbara Cadastre.
the registration of a
certificate of the clerk of Acting on a motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners, the
court in which the action or court issued an order dated October 24, 1984 dismissing
proceeding was pending Civil Case No. 15871.
stating the manner of
disposal thereof." The order was then appealed to the Court of Appeals. This
appeal is the reason why respondent Judge Gustilo recalled
That the lis pendens under Entry No. the February 12, 1987 order directing the Acting Register of
427183 was annotated on T-106098, T- Deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated on the
111560, T-111561 and T-111562 by virtue of certificates of titles of the petitioners.
a case docketed as Civil Case No. 15871,
now pending with the Intermediate Court of This petition is impressed with merit.
Appeals, entitled, "Calixta Provido, Ricardo
Provido, Sr., Maria Provido and Perfecto
Maria Provido Gotera was one of the petitioners in G.R. No.
Provido, Plaintiffs, versus Eduardo Baranda
62042. Although Calixta Provido, Ricardo Provido, Maxima
and Alfonso Hitalia, Respondents."
Provido and Perfecta Provido, the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
15871 were not impleaded as parties, it is very clear in the
That under the above-quoted provisions of petition that Maria Provido was acting on behalf of the
P.D. 152, the cancellation of subject Notice Providos who allegedly are her co-owners in Lot No. 4517,
of Lis Pendens can only be made or deemed Sta. Barbara Cadastre as shown by Transfer Certificate of
cancelled upon the registration of the Title No. T-25772 issued in her name and the names of the
certificate of the Clerk of Court in which the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871, among others. (Annex "E"
action or proceeding was pending, stating G.R. No. 62042, p. 51, Rollo) In fact, one of the issues
the manner of disposal thereof. raised by petitioners Maria Provido Gotera and Gregoria
Perez in G.R. No. 62042 was as follows:
Considering that Civil Case No. 1587, upon
which the Notice of Lis Pendens was based xxx xxx xxx
is still pending with the Intermediate Court of
Appeals, only the Intermediate Court of
2. Whether or not, in the same reconstitution
Appeals and not this Honorable Court in a
proceedings, respondent Judge Midpantao
mere cadastral proceedings can order the
L. Adil had the authority to declare as null
cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens.
and void the transfer certificate of title in the
(pp. 68-69, Rollo)
name of petitioner Maria Provido Gotera and
her other co-owners. (p. 3, Rollo; Emphasis
Adopting these arguments and on the ground that some if supplied)
not all of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 were not
privies to the case affected by the Supreme Court
It thus appears that the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 where the continuances of the trial, for which
were privies to G.R. No. 62042 contrary to the trial court's the plaintiff is responsible, are unnecessarily
findings that they were not. delaying the determination of the case to the
prejudice of the defendant. (Victoriano v.
G.R. No. 62042 affirmed the order of the then Court of First Rovira, supra; The Municipal Council of
Instance of Iloilo in the reconstitution proceedings declaring Paranaque v. Court of First Instance of
TCT No. 25772 in the name of Providos over Lot No. 4517, Rizal, supra)
Sta. Barbara Cadastre null and void for being fraudulently
obtained and declaring TCT No. 106098 over the same The facts of this case in relation to the earlier cases brought
parcel Lot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre in the name of all the way to the Supreme Court illustrate how the private
petitioners Eduardo Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia valid and respondents tried to block but unsuccessfuly the already
subsisting. final decisions in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432.

The decision in G.R. No. 62042 became final and executory Parenthetically, respondent Judge Tito Gustilo abused his
on March 25,1983 long before Civil Case No. 15871 was discretion in sustaining the respondent Acting Register of
filed. Deeds' stand that, the notice of lis pendens in the
certificates of titles of the petitioners over Lot No. 4571,
Under these circumstances, it is crystal clear that the Barbara Cadastre cannot be cancelled on the ground of
Providos, private respondents herein, in filing Civil Case No. pendency of Civil Case No. 15871 with the Court of
15871 were trying to delay the full implementation of the Appeals. In upholding the position of the Acting Register of
final decisions in G.R. No. 62042 as well as G.R. No. 64432 Deeds based on Section 77 of Presidential Decree No.
wherein this Court ordered immediate implementation of the 1529, he conveniently forgot the first paragraph thereof
writs of possession and demolition in the reconstitution which provides:
proceedings involving Lot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre.
Cancellation of lis pendens. — Before final
The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is defined in the judgment, a notice of lis pendens may be
following manner: cancelled upon Order of the Court after
proper showing that the notice is for the
Lis pendens has been conceived to protect purpose of molesting the adverse party, or
the real rights of the party causing the that it is not necessary to protect the rights
registration thereof With the lis pendens duly of the party who caused it to be registered. It
recorded, he could rest secure that he would may also be cancelled by the Register of
not lose the property or any part of it. For, Deeds upon verified petition of the party who
notice of lis pendens serves as a warning to caused the registration thereof.
a prospective purchaser or incumbrancer
that the particular property is in litigation; This Court cannot understand how respondent Judge
and that he should keep his hands off the Gustilo could have been misled by the respondent Acting
same, unless of course he intends to gamble Register of Deeds on this matter when in fact he was the
on the results of the litigation. (Section 24, same Judge who issued the order dismissing Civil Case No.
Rule 14, RuIes of Court; Jamora v. Duran, et 15871 prompting the private respondents to appeal said
al., 69 Phil. 3, 11; I Martin, Rules of Court, p. order dated October 10, 1984 to the Court of Appeals. The
415, footnote 3, citing cases.) (Natanov. records of the main case are still with the court below but
Esteban, 18 SCRA 481, 485-486) based on the order, it can be safely assumed that the
various pleadings filed by the parties subsequent to the
The private respondents are not entitled to this protection. motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners (the defendants
The facts obtaining in this case necessitate the application therein) touched on the issue of the validity of TCT No.
of the rule enunciated in the cases of Victoriano v. Rovila 25772 in the name of the Providos over Lot Number 4571,
(55 Phil. 1000), Municipal Council of Paranaque v. Court of Sta. Barbara Cadastre in the light of the final decisions in
First Instance of Rizal (70 Phil., 363) and Sarmiento v. Ortiz G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432.
(10 SCRA 158), to the effect that:
The next question to be determined is on the nature of the
We have once held that while ordinarily a duty of the Register of Deeds to annotate and/or cancel the
notice of pendency which has been filed in a notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title.
proper case, cannot be cancelled while the
action is pending and undetermined, the Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It
proper court has the discretionary power to shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately
cancel it under peculiar circumstances, as register an instrument presented for registration dealing with
for instance, where the evidence so far real or personal property which complies with all the
presented by the plaintiff does not bear out requisites for registration. ... . If the instrument is not
the main allegations of his complaint, and registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and
inform the presentor of such denial in writing, stating the by the trial court which annulled the February 12, 1987
ground or reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to order are SET ASIDE. Costs against the private
appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this respondents.
Decree."
SO ORDERED.
Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in
doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or
memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed,
mortgage or other instrument presented to him for
registration or where any party in interest does not agree
with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with
reference to any such instrument, the question shall be
submitted to the Commission of Land Registration by the
Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the
Register of Deeds. ... ."

The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when

the words and phrases of the statute are clear and
unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the
language employed and the statute must be taken to mean
exactly what it says. (Aparri v. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA
231; Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union
[IBAAEU] v. Inciong, 132 SCRA 663) The statute
concerning the function of the Register of Deeds to register
instruments in a torrens certificate of title is clear and leaves
no room for construction. According to Webster's Third
International Dictionary of the English Language — the
word shall means "ought to, must, ...obligation used to
express a command or exhortation, used in laws,
regulations or directives to express what is mandatory."
Hence, the function of a Register of Deeds with reference to
the registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments and
the like is ministerial in nature. The respondent Acting
Register of Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a
motion for reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order
directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated
in the certificates of titles of the petitioners over the subject
parcel of land. In case of doubt as to the proper step to be
taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other
instrument presented to him, he should have asked the
opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration now, the
Administrator of the National Land Title and Deeds
Registration Administration in accordance with Section 117
of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

In the ultimate analysis, however, the responsibility for the

delays in the full implementation of this Court's already final
resolutions in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432 which
includes the cancellation of the notice of lis
pendens annotated in the certificates of titles of the
petitioners over Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre
falls on the respondent Judge. He should never have
allowed himself to become part of dilatory tactics, giving as
excuse the wrong impression that Civil Case No. 15871 filed
by the private respondents involves another set of parties
claiming Lot No. 4517 under their own Torrens Certificate of
Title.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The

February 12, 1987 order of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo,
Branch 23 is REINSTATED. All subsequent orders issued