Third Division Anita Reyesmesugas, G.R. No. 174835 Petitioner

THIRD DIVISION
ANITA REYESMESUGAS, G.R. No. 174835

Petitioner,
Present:
CORONA, J., Chairperson,

VELASCO, JR.,
- v e r s u s - NACHURA,
PERALTA and
ABAD, JJ.
ALEJANDRO AQUINO REYES,
Respondent. Promulgated:
March 22, 2010
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] seeking to reverse the June

23, 2006 and September 21, 2006 orders[2] of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati (RTC), Branch 62 denying the petitioners motion to cancel a notice
of lis pendens.
Petitioner Anita Reyes-Mesugas and respondent Alejandro A. Reyes are the

children of Lourdes Aquino Reyes and Pedro N. Reyes. Lourdes died
intestate, leaving to her heirs, among others, three parcels of land, including a
lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 24475.
On February 3, 2000, respondent filed a petition for settlement of the

estate of Lourdes,[3] praying for his appointment as administrator due to
alleged irregularities and fraudulent transactions by the other heirs. Petitioner,
her father Pedro and Arturo, a sibling of the petitioner, opposed the petition.
On August 30, 2000, a compromise agreement[4] was entered into by the

parties whereby the estate of Lourdes was partitioned. A decision[5] dated
September 13, 2000 was rendered by the RTC pursuant to the said
compromise agreement. The compromise agreement with respect to TCT No.
24475 is reproduced below:
5. That the parties hereto hereby agree to recognize, acknowledge

and respect:
5.1. the improvements found on the parcel of land covered

under TCT No. 24475 of the Registry of Deeds of
Rizal consisting of two lots namely Lot 4-A and Lot
4-B of the new survey with two (2) residential houses
presently occupied and possessed as owners thereof
by Antonio Reyes and Anita Reyes-Mesugas to
constitute part of their shares in the estate of Lourdes
Aquino Reyes;
5.2 further, the improvement consisting of a bakery-store

under lease to a third party. The proceeds thereof shall
be shared by Antonio Reyes and Pedro N. Reyes;
5.3 that the expenses for the partition and titling of the
property between Antonio Reyes and Anita Reyes-
Mesugas shall be equally shared by them.
On December 7, 2004, petitioner filed a motion to

cancel lis pendens annotation for TCT No. 24475[6] in the RTC in view of the
finality of judgment in the settlement of the estate. Petitioner argued that the
settlement of the estate proceeding had terminated; hence, the annotation
of lis pendens could already be cancelled since it had served its purpose.
Respondent opposed the motion and claimed that the parties, in addition
to the compromise agreement, executed side agreements which had yet to be
fulfilled. One such agreement was executed between petitioner[7] and
respondent granting respondent a one-meter right of way on the lot covered
by TCT No. 24475. However, petitioner refused to give the right of way and
threatened to build a concrete structure to prevent access. He argued that,
unless petitioner permitted the inscription of the right of way on the certificate
of title pursuant to their agreement, the notice of lis pendens in TCT No.
24475 must remain.
In its order[8] dated January 26, 2006, the RTC denied the motion to cancel the
notice of lis pendens annotation for lack of sufficient merit. It found that the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens was unnecessary as there were
reasons for maintaining it in view of petitioner's non-compliance with the
alleged right of way agreement between the parties. It stated that:
A careful perusal of the compromise agreement dated September 13,

2000 revealed that one of the properties mentioned is a parcel of land
with improvements consisting [of] two hundred nine (209) square
meters situated in Makati covered under TCT No. 24475 of
the Registry of Deeds [of] Rizal in the name of Pedro N. Reyes
married to Lourdes Aquino Reyes and form[s] part of the notarized
right of way agreement on TCT No. 24475, considering that
the movant Anita Reyes is still bound by the right of way agreement,
the same should be complied with before the cancellation of the
subject annotation.[9] (Citations omitted)
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal.[10] Because the denial of a motion to cancel
the notice of lis pendens annotation was an interlocutory order, the RTC
denied the notice of appeal as it could not be appealed until the judgment on
the main case was rendered.[11] A motion for reconsideration was filed by
petitioner but the same was also denied.[12]
Hence, this petition.
We find for petitioner.
A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal

concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already
commenced.[13] Once submitted to the court and stamped with judicial
approval, it becomes more than a mere private contract binding upon the
parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the
controversy, it has the force and effect of any judgment.[14]
Consequently, a judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise

agreement is immediately executory as there is no appeal from such
judgment.[15] When both parties enter into an agreement to end a pending
litigation and request that a decision be rendered approving said agreement,
such action constitutes an implied waiver of the right to appeal against the
said decision.[16]
In this instance, the case filed with the RTC was a special proceeding
for the settlement of the estate of Lourdes. The RTC therefore took cognizance
of the case as a probate court.
Settled is the rule that a probate court is a tribunal of limited

jurisdiction. It acts on matters pertaining to the estate but never on the rights
to property arising from the contract.[17] It approves contracts entered into for
and on behalf of the estate or the heirs to it but this is by fiat of the Rules of
Court.[18] It is apparent therefore that when the RTC approved the compromise
agreement on September 13, 2000, the settlement of the estate proceeding
came to an end.
Moreover, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled when the

annotation is not necessary to protect the title of the party who caused it to be
recorded.[19] The compromise agreement did not mention the grant of a right
of way to respondent. Any agreement other than the judicially approved
compromise agreement between the parties was outside the limited
jurisdiction of the probate court. Thus, any other agreement entered into by
the petitioner and respondent with regard to a grant of a right of way was not
within the jurisdiction of the RTC acting as a probate court. Therefore, there
was no reason for the RTC not to cancel the notice of lis pendens on TCT No.
24475 as respondent had no right which needed to be protected. Any alleged
right arising from the side agreement on the right of way can be fully protected
by filing an ordinary action for specific performance in a court of general
jurisdiction.
More importantly, the order of the probate court approving the

compromise had the effect of directing the delivery of the residue of the estate
of Lourdes to the persons entitled thereto under the compromise agreement.
As such, it brought to a close the intestate proceedings[20] and the probate court
lost jurisdiction over the case, except only as regards to the compliance and
the fulfillment by the parties of their respective obligations under the
compromise agreement.
Having established that the proceedings for the settlement of the estate
of Lourdes came to an end upon the RTCs promulgation of a decision based
on the compromise agreement, Section 4, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court
provides:
Sec. 4. Recording the order of partition of estate. - Certified copies

of final orders and judgments of the court relating to the real estate
or the partition thereof shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of
the province where the property is situated.
In line with the recording of the order for the partition of the estate,
paragraph 2, Section 77 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529[21] provides:
Section 77. Cancellation of Lis Pendens xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx
At any time after final judgment in favor of the
defendant, or other disposition of the action such as to terminate
finally all rights of the plaintiff in and to the land and/or
buildings involved, in any case in which a memorandum or notice
of lis pendens has been registered as provided in the preceding
section, the notice of lis pendens shall be deemed cancelled upon
the registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which the
action or proceeding was pending stating the manner of disposal
thereof. (emphasis supplied)
Thus, when the September 13, 2000 decision was recorded in the
Registry of Deeds of Rizal pursuant to Section 4, Rule 90 of the Rules of
Court, the notice of lis pendens inscribed on TCT No. 24475 was deemed
cancelled by virtue of Section 77 of PD No. 1529.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Orders of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 62 dated June 23, 2006 and September
21, 2006 are SET ASIDE. The notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No.
24475 is hereby declared CANCELLED pursuant to Section 77 of the PD
No. 1529 in relation to Section 4, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED.

Third Division Anita Reyesmesugas, G.R. No. 174835 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Division Anita Reyesmesugas, G.R. No. 174835 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Division Anita Reyesmesugas, G.R. No. 174835 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

ANITA REYESMESUGAS, G.R. No. 174835

CORONA, J., Chairperson,

March 22, 2010

This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] seeking to reverse the June

Petitioner Anita Reyes-Mesugas and respondent Alejandro A. Reyes are the

On February 3, 2000, respondent filed a petition for settlement of the

On August 30, 2000, a compromise agreement[4] was entered into by the

5. That the parties hereto hereby agree to recognize, acknowledge

5.1. the improvements found on the parcel of land covered

5.2 further, the improvement consisting of a bakery-store

On December 7, 2004, petitioner filed a motion to

A careful perusal of the compromise agreement dated September 13,

Hence, this petition.

We find for petitioner.

A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal

Consequently, a judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise

Settled is the rule that a probate court is a tribunal of limited

Moreover, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled when the

More importantly, the order of the probate court approving the

Sec. 4. Recording the order of partition of estate. - Certified copies

Section 77. Cancellation of Lis Pendens xxx xxx xxx

You might also like