PASTOR TANCHOCO, MACARIO TANCHOCO, AGRIPINA TANCHOCO, INOCENCIA TANCHOCO, LIBERATA TANCHOCO AND TRINIDAD TANCHOCO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FLORENDO P. AQUINO, AS JUDGE OF THE COUR…

This is a petition for certiorari
with preliminary injunction, seeking the annulment of the Orders dated June 25,
1968, July 31, 1968, March 14, 1969 and May 29, 1969 issued by Respondent Court
of First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
Branch I, in Civil Case No. 8077, entitled “Donato
Lajom v. Jose P. Viola, et al”.

The dispositive
portion of the Order dated June 25, 1968 Rollo, p. 63)
reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the undivided one-half of lot 314 described under
T.C.T. No. 11682 is now declared to have been ceded and conveyed to the plaintiffs Vicenta T. Vda. de Lajom
and Jose T. Lajom, and there­fore declared owners
thereof.  (The Register of Deeds for the
Province of Nueva Eci­ja is
hereby ordered to issue the title of said undivided one-half of lot 314 in the
names of said plaintiffs Vicenta T. Vda. de Lajom, of legal age,
widow, Filipino, and resident of 119 D. Arellano, Caloocan
City, and Jose T. Lajom, of legal age, single,
Filipino, and resident of 119 D. Arellano, Caloocan
City, as an effect of the lis pendens
annotated thereon on January 11, 1950). 
The defendant Rafael Viola and his supposed successors over the
aforesaid property after the lis pendens
had become operative on January 11,
1950 are hereby ordered to respect the rights and ownership of the
afore-mentioned plaintiffs Vicenta T. Vda. de Lajom
and Jose T. Lajom by virtue of the terms and
conditions of this order.

SO ORDERED.”

The Order of July 31, 1968 (Rollo, p. 68)
states:

“Supplementary to the order of the Court of June 25, 1968, the
Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija
is hereby ordered to cancel all annotations with respect to the undivided
one-half (½) of Lot 314 described
under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11862 after the notice of lis pendens at
the back of the said title was annota­ted on January 11, 1950 and to cancel the
original and owner’s duplicate certificate of titles of all whomsoever claim to
have derived title from the defendant Rafael Vio­la over the afore-mentioned
property after the said lis pendens
became imperative on January 11, 1950.

SO ORDERED.”

The Order of March
14, 1969 (Rollo, p. 139) reads, as follows:

“Considering the exhaustive pleadings filed by the movants as well as the plain­tiffs in support of the Motion
for Reconsi­deration filed in connection with the Orders of this Court of June
25 and July 21, 1968, the Court believes and so finds that the movants not having been parties to the action at bar, they
have no personality to question the aforementioned orders sought to be
reconsidered; and without further dwelling into the other legal issues raised
by the movants the Motion for Reconsideration is
hereby denied for lack of merit.  This
does not mean, however, that this Court is closing any avenue of legal remedy
that might be available to the movants in another
action.

SO ORDERED.”

The order of May 29,
1969 (Rollo, p. 141) is quoted as follows:

“Submitted for resolution is a Motion for Execution with Writ
of Possession.

The Court finds the said motion, dated May 22, 1969 to be well-founded and therefore
grants the same.

Let a Writ of Execution with Writ of Possessions issue in favor of
the plaintiffs in accordance with the order sought to be executed.

SO ORDERED.”

The factual background of
the case may be found in the decision of the Court in G.R. No. L-6457, entitled
Donato Lajom v. Jose Viola,
et al. promulgated on May 30, 1956, quoted in Lajom
v. Leuterio, et al. (107 Phil. 651 [1960]), as
follows:

“Maximo Viola died on September 3, 1933.  Judicial proceedings of his testate estate were instituted in the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Civil Case No.
4741) and closed on March 17, 1937.  An agreement of partition and distribution
(dated October 25, 1935)
was executed by and between Jose
P. Viola, Rafael Viola and Silvio Viola, legitimate children of Maximo
Viola and Juana Toura, whereby the properties left by their father, Maximo Viola, were divided among them­selves.  On March 17, 1939, Donato
Lajom (plaintiff-appellee herein) filed in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, a complaint, amended
on May 16, 1939, praying, among other things, that he be declared a natural
child of Maximo Viola, impliedly recognized and
acknow­ledged in accordance with the laws in force prior to the Civil Code,
thereby being a co-heir of Jose P. Viola, Rafael Viola and Silvio
Viola (defendants-appel­lants); that the agreement of partition and
distribution excuted in 1935 by these three legitimate children of Maximino
Viola be declared null and void and after collation, payment of debts and
accounting of fruits, a new partition be ordered adjudi­cating one-seventh of
the estate left by Maximo Viola to Donato Lajom and two-se­venth to
each of the three appellants.  The latter
filed a demurrer to the amended complaint which was sustained by the Court of
First Instance of Nueva Ecija
in its order of July 31, 1939, holding that the allegations of the amended
complaint called for the exercise of probate jurisdiction and that as the
complaint showed that the will of
the deceased Maximo Viola had al­ready been probated
in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan which had
first taken cognizance of the settlement of his estate, the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija
could not subsequently assume the same jurisdiction.  Upon appeal to the Supreme Court by the
plaintiff-appellee, the order sustaining the demurrer
was reversed and the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for further pro­ceeding.

“On December 21, 1942, the defendants-appellants accordingly
filed an answer to the amended complaint containing specific demands and
setting up the affirmative de­fenses that the appellants are the sole heirs of Maximo Viola; that corresponding judicial proceedings of
his testate estate were duly instituted and terminated in the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan, of which plaintiff-appellee was fully aware; that the action was filed by the appellee two years after the termination of said testate
proceedings and almost six years after the death of Maximo
Viola, without having previously asserted any right whatsoever to any part of
said estate, and is therefore now barred from doing so; and that assuming the appellee to be
an acknowledged natural child of Maximo Viola, his right of action had prescribed.  After the trial, the Court of First Instance
of Nueva Ecija rendered a deci­sion in favor of the plaintiff, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

” ‘EN VISTA DE
LAS CONSIDERA­CIONES ARRIBA EXPUESTAS, el Juzga­do falla este asunto
a favor del demandante y contra de los demanda­dos, declarando al demandante, Do­nato Lajom, hijo natural, implicita y tacitamente, reconocido por su padre, el difunto Dr. Maximo Viola, de acuerdo con la Ley de Toro; se declara la particion y distribucion hecha por los demandados‘
convenio de particion y adjudicacion de los Bienes Dejados por el Difundo Dr. Maximo Viola, ilegal, nulo y de ningun valor; se ordena la colacion de los bienes en cuestion,
poniendo los mismos en manos de un administrador judicial; se ordena
a todos y cada uno de los aqui
demandados a presen­tar una liquidacion de los frutos y productos
provenientes de dichas propiedades asignadas a cada uno de ellos
desde el Octubre 25, 1935,
con el fin de una nueva distribucion; se ordena a los demandados Jose P. Viola y Silvio Viola a someter una liquida­cion de los frutos y productos
de las tres parcelas de terreno mencionadas en los parrafos 1 y 2 del Annex ‘A’ que han sido puestas
bajo su administracion
en el Procedimiento Especial No. 4741 del Juzgado de Primera Ins­tancia de Bulacan a partir del 3 del Septiembre de
1933; y finalmente, se ordena
la particion y adjudica­cion
a favor del demandante de una
septima (1/7) parte de dichas pro­piedades y productos; dos septimas (2/7) partes a cada uno
de los aqui demandados; cuando todas esas propiedades
pertenecientes al finado
Dr. Maximo Viola sean colados, todas las deudas pagadas
y los frutos rendidos.  Con costas.’ “

Said decision of the
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija was, on appeal, affirmed by this Court in the cited
case, L-6457, May 30, 1956.

When the decision of the
Court became final, the records were remanded to the lower court where Lajom filed a motion for the execution of the
judgment, the collation of all
properties of the late Dr. Maximo Viola and the
redistribution of the estate as indicated in said judgment.  Acting on the motion, respondent Court issued
an order dated October 30, 1956, declaring, among others, that the decision
sought to be executed annulled
the partition previously entered into by the defendants in Civil Case No. 8077
and ordered the “col­lation of all the properties in question” placing
the same in the hands of a judicial administrator.  Accordingly, respondent Court ordered the
defendants in possession of each and every one of the 47 parcels of land
enumerated in the agreement of partition which was annulled, to deliver the
same to the judi­cial administrator to be appointed by said court and to submit
a liquidation of the fruits and products of the properties assign to each and
everyone of them from October 25, 1935.

When Rafael Viola filed
the report required in the Order, Lajom questioned
the omission of 215 hectares of riceland allegedly donated by Maximo
Viola to said Rafael Viola who objected to the inclusion of the aforementioned
property.  He was sustained by respondent
Court on the ground that the property was not among the properties in question
enumerated in the inventory of property attached to Lajom’s
original complaint in Civil Case No.
8077 and was not covered by the decision therein rendered and subsequently
affirmed by the Court in L-6457.  On certiorari
the Court affirmed the decision of the respondent Court in L-13557 (107 Phil.
651 [1960]).

Pending the partition,
adjudication and distribution of
the estate in the proportion indicated in the decision in view of the fact that
the accounting of the fruits covering a period of 30 years had not yet been
completely terminated, aside from other pending matters, on April 6, 1964
Rafael Viola sold an undivided 1/2 portion of Lot No. 314,
which portion is located on the western part of the property, in favor of petitioners herein, Pastor, Macario and Agripina Tanchoco to whom was
issued TCT No. OCT-66683-Nueva Ecija for the sum of P50,000.00, annotated at the back of TCT No. 11682, under Entry
No. 33432/T-11682 and again on January 5, 1965 sold a portion of 6/7 of 1/2 of
the same land which is located on the eastern part of Lot No. 314 or parcel No.
2 of the property in favor of peti­tioners Inocencia,
Liberata and Trinidad Tanchoco
to whom was issued TCT No. NT-66684-Nueva Ecija for Lot 314-B-2-B for the sum of P42,000.00, also annotated at the back of TCT No. 11682
under Entry No. 34720/T-11682 (Rollo, pp. 4, 23, 31).

On February 27, 1967 Donato Lajom, one of the private
respondents herein, filed a motion for contempt and to return Lot
314 to the estate of the late Dr. Maximo Viola (Rollo, p. 30) against the defendants in Civil Case No. 8077 and the Tanchocos, petitioners
herein, in view of the sale without permission of respondent Court
in spite of the lis pendens in
his favor annotated on the back of TCT No. 11682 under Entry No. 19553/T-14707 dated January 11, 1950 and the decision rendered by
respondent Court which became final after the same was affirmed by the Court on May 30, 1956. 
Lajom prayed for an order:

(1)      
Citing defendants
Rafael Viola, Pastor, Macario, Agripina, Inocencia, Liberata
and Trinidad, all surnamed Tanchoco, and Deputy
Register of Deeds Lauro P. Puno
for contempt of court – for having unlawfully interferred
with property under administration;

(2)      
Declaring the sales executed by Rafael Viola in
favor of the Tanchocos, dated April 6, 1964 and
January 5, 1965 il­legal and null and void – for having been made without
permission of the court;

(3)      
Cancelling the new
titles TCT No. NT-66682, TCT No. NT-66683 and TCT No. NT-66684 in the names of
Rafael Viola and the Tanchocos, respectively; and,
the false Entry No. 22189 on the back of TCT No. 11682;

(4)      
Directing Pastor, Macario
and Agripina, all surnamed Tanchoco,
to submit an accounting of the fruits gathered by them on Lot 314-B-2-A to
begin from April 6, 1964 until they shall have allowed the administrator to
gather the fruits corresponding to the estate;

(5)      
Directing Inocencia, Liberata and Trinidad, all surnamed Tanchoco,
to submit an accounting of the fruits gathered by them on Lot 314-B-2-B to
begin from January 5, 1965 until they shall have allowed the administrator to
gather the fruits corresponding to the estate; and

(6)      
Directing all the defendants Tanchocos
to immediately deliver and surrender joint possession of Lots 314-B-2-A and
314-B-2-B to the administrator Maximino M. Lorenzo,
and to permit and allow the said administrator to jointly participate in harvesting
and gathering 1/2 of the crops of palay now standing
thereon – otherwise, they should be incarcerated until they comply with the
order.

After hearing the motion
for contempt, respondent Court issued the order dated June 15,
1967 (Rollo, p. 37), the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, let the annotations appearing in
T.C.T. No. 11682 be carried to the two transfer certificates of titles, T.C.T. No. NT-66683 and T.C.T. No. NT-66684, particularly the lis pendens under Entry No. 19553-T-14707 at the back of T.C.T.
No. 11682; and once accom­plished, the portion of the Motion for Contempt of
March 3, 1967 with respect to the aforementioned annotations will have been
considered withdrawn.  The Register of
Deeds of Nueva Ecija is
hereby ordered by this Court to make the aforementioned annotations on the back
of T.C.T. Nos. NT-66683 and NT-66684 in accordance with the dispositive part and
spirit of this order within a period of five (5) days from receipt
hereof.  The respondent Tanchocos who are in possession of the trans­fer
certificates of title on which the said annotation should be made are likewise
or­dered to present to the Register of Deeds the corresponding titles within a
period of fifteen (15) days from today the owner’s dup­licate
copies of said titles for the corres­ponding entry of such annotations.  With respect to the other issues raised by the plain­tiff in his motion of March 3, 1967, he may now follow the course of action he
believes proper and adequate in the premises.”

On July 10,
1967, Donato Lajom (already dead)
substituted by his heirs and successors-in-interest Vicenta
T. Vda. de Lajom and Jose T. Lajom, and the
Violas submitted to res­pondent Court for approval a compromise agreement (Rollo, pp. 49-55) wherein they amicably settled their
dispute over the estate of the late Maximo
Viola.  Among the provisions of the
agreement was a statement that the agreement notwithstanding, the above entitled case, that is Civil Case No. 8077,
shall continue but only for the purpose of the recovery and bringing back to
the estate of the undivided one-half of Lot No. 314 until all the issues raised
in the aforementioned pending motion for contempt shall have been completely
resolved by final judgment and/or on such other matters the lower court may
deem proper (Rollo, p. 52).

Respondent Court approved
the compromise agreement on July 11, 1967 except paragraph 2 thereof, the agreement
with respect to Lot No. 314 which had been subdivided into Lots No. 314-b-2-a
and 314-b-2-b and covered by T.C.T. No. NT?66683 and
NT-66684, respectively. 
Respondent Court withheld action thereon until it shall have finally
resolved the motion still pending before it with respect to the said lots.  This dispositive
portion of the order of the Court, approving the compromise agreement states:

“All the properties described in paragraph on the compromise
agreement are now declared to have
been ceded and conveyed by the
defendants in this case to Vicenta Tecson Vda. de
Lajom and Jose T. Lajom.  The Register of Deeds of Nueva
Ecija is hereby ordered to effect
the transfer of the titles of the
properties aforementioned in accordance
with the terms of the Compromise
Agreement hereto attached excepting Lot No. 314 now Lots Nos. 314-b-2-a and
314-b-2-b, subject to the condi­tion
herein recited in paragraph 1 of
this order.”

Meantime, on August 21,
1967 petitioners as defendants in the contempt charge entered their special
appearance with respondent Court “with respect to the return of Lot 314 to
the Estate of the late Dr. Maximo Viola and more
particularly to prayers (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the motion for con­tempt
dated February 27, 1967 for the sole and only purpose of raising the question
of this court’s lack of jurisdiction not only
over the persons of the TANCHOCOS but also on the subject matter of the
motion,” asserting that
they have not been summoned but
merely notified of the motion for contempt by registered mail and that while it
is true that they appeared in court in the contempt phase of the motion they
did not appear in court on the other phase of the motion which is for the
return of Lot 314 (Rollo, p. 39).  An opposition to special appearance was filed
by private respondent Jose Lajom as plaintiff in
Civil Case No. 8077, praying for its dismissal on the ground that petitioners
cannot split the single action nor split their appearance in the action for
contempt on the basis of the number of reliefs prayed
for, because the prayer for reliefs does not and
cannot change or alter the singleness of the action, and that consequently, the
special appearance entered allegedly for the sole and separate purpose of
objecting to the juris­diction of respondent court not only over the persons of
the Tanchocos but also over the subject matter must
be held as a general appearance.  A
voluntary general appearance waives notice (Rollo, p.
41).

A rejoinder to the opposition was filed by petitioners on October 17, 1967 (Rollo, p. 46).

On February 15, 1968 the Lajoms, private respondents herein, filed with respondent
court a motion to approve paragraph 2 of the compromise agreement and to issue
a writ of possession (Rollo, p. 56) specifically
praying for an Order, among others (1) directing Rafael Viola, his purchasers,
Pastor Tanchoco, et al., and all whomsoever derived
title from him to return to the estate thru the administrator the undivided
one-half of Lot 314 described under TCT No. 11682 and
simultaneously upon issuance of such order; (2) approving paragraph 2 of the
compromise agreement, dated July 10, 1967; and ceding and adjudicating to the
plaintiffs Vicenta T. Vda.
de Lajom and Jose T. Lajom
the undivided one-half of Lot 314 described under TCT No. 11682, together with
the crops of palay existing thereon; (3) directing the Register of Deeds for the province
of Nueva Ecija to effect
the transfer of title of the undivided one-half of Lot 314 described under TCT
No. 11682 to and in favor of plaintiffs Vicenta
T. Vda. de Lajom and Jose
T. Lajom, and to cancel any and all titles or transactions affecting the undivided one-half of Lot 314 described
under TCT No. 11682 made or done after
the annotation of the lis pendens on
January 11, 1950; and (4) issuing a writ of possession
directing the Sheriff of Nueva Ecija
and/or his duly authorized representative to place the plaintiff Vicenta T. Vda. de Lajom and Jose T. Lajom in
possession of the undivided one-half of Lot 314 described
under TCT No. 11682 and the crops of palay existing
thereon, more particularly the western half thereof (to the extent of their
one-half share) bordering the 
Provincial Board and Moreno property on the west, situated at San Isidro, Nueva Ecija,
and ousting therefrom the defendant Rafael Viola, his
purchasers Pastor Tanchoco, et al. and all whomsoever
derived title from him or any of them immediately upon issuance thereof.

Acting upon the motion respondent court issued the questioned order of June
25, 1968 followed by the Suppletory Order
of July 31, 1968 and finally the order of March 14, 1969 denying petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration dated August 7, 1968 (Rollo, p. 72) and suppletory motion for reconsideration dated October 11, 1968 (Rollo, p. 78) both opposed by the
Lajoms, private respondents herein (Rollo, p. 74 and 81) completed with a reply to the two
oppositions (Rollo, p. 83), a rejoinder to reply (Rollo, p. 100) and
a sub-rejoinder to the rejoinder (Rollo, p. 109).

The writ of execution and
writ of possession were issued on May 29, 1969 (Rollo, p.
123) executing respondent court’s orders of June 25, 1968 and
July 31, 1968.  It was returned to respondent court duly
enforced on June 4, 1969 (Rollo, p.
180).  Thus, this
petition.

The petition was received
and filed with the Court on July 7, 1969 (Rollo, p. 1). 
The writ of preliminary injunction, restraining the execution and
implementation of respondent court’s orders of June 25 and July 31,
1968 and the writ of
possession of May 29, 1969 in Civil Case No. 8077, was issued on July 28, 1969 (Rollo, p. 160).  The answer of private res­pondents
Vicenta T. Vda. de Lajom and Jose T. Lajom was filed
on August 8, 1969
(Rollo, p. 168).

The case was orally
argued by both parties in the hearing of the case held on October
1, 1969 and both
parties were required to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda in amplification of their oral arguments (Rollo, p. 233).

On the
same date private respondents Vicenta T. Vda.
de Lajom and Jose T. Lajom
filed a motion to dismiss the peti­tion (Rollo, p. 190) on the ground that Civil Case No. 474 (Rollo, p. 194) for quieting of title, cancellation
of transfer certificate of title, partition
and damages, etc. filed by petitioners on April 29, 1969 is pending before the
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch V, involving identical parties, identical courses of
action, that any judgment that may be rendered in the first action, regardless
of which party is successful will necessarily amount to an adjudication of the
second action (Rollo, p. 190).

The petitioners’
memorandum was filed on October 16, 1969 (Rollo, p. 238);
the memorandum for private respondents Vicenta T. Vda. de Lajom and Jose T. Lajom was filed on Novem­ber 3, 1969 (Rollo,
p. 271), three (3) days late since the Court granted private respondents a
second extension of five (5) days from October 26 to file a memorandum, in its
Resolution dated November 3, 1969 (Rollo, p.
273).  Private respondents Rafael Viola failed to file his written memorandum in spite of the extension
of fifteen (15) days granted by the Court with­in which to file said
memorandum, which expired on October 31, 1969.

The Court resolved on December
9, 1969 to consider
the case submitted for decision (Rollo, p. 277).  It denied the motion of the counsel for
petitioners to have the case set again for oral argument, in its Resolution
dated November 17, 1977 (Rollo, p. 287).

On September
10, 1986 the case
was transferred to the Second Division in a Resolution of the First Division of the Court (Rollo, p. 299).  In its Resolution of May 18,
1987 the Court
ordered the case to be
calendared for deliberation.  (Rollo, p. 300).

The lone issue to be
resolved by the Court is the question of whether or not the
petitioners were denied
procedural due process that
could nullify respondent court’s
orders of June 25,
1968, July 31,
1968, March 14, 1969 and May 29,
1969.

The answer is in the
negative.

Several circumstances
belie petitioners claim of having been denied procedural due
process.

First, is the undisputed
fact that when petitioners purchased on April 6, 1964 from Rafael Viola an
undivided (1/2) portion of Lot 314 and then on January 5, 1965 a 6/7 portion of
the other half of Lot 314 there was at the back of TCT No. 11682 covering Lot
314 an annotation of a notice of lis pendens in
favor of Donato Lajom,
under Entry No. 19553/T-14707 (Rollo, p. 23), as
follows:

“Entry No. 19553/T-14707; Kind ? Lis
pendens in favor of – Donato
Lajom; Conditions – 1/2 of the properties described
in this title is the object of a complaint filed in Civil Case No. 8077 of the
C.F.I. of N.E.; Date of instrument – Dec. 16, 1949; Date of Inscription ?
Jan. 11, 1950 at 2:00 p.m.”

Petitioner Pastor Tanchoco who holds office as Asst. Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija (Rollo,
p. 30) could not have missed the import of such annotation.  It was 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 said property.  Since
petitioners herein bought the
land in question with the
knowledge of the existing encumbrance thereon, they cannot invoke the right of purchasers in good faith, they cannot likewise have acquired better rights than those of
their predecessors in interest (Constantino v. Espiritu, 45 SCRA 557 [1972].

Obviously, Rafael Viola
sold to the Tanchocos an undivided 1/2 portion
of Lot 314 and the 6/7 portion of the
other half of the same lot in
bad faith manifestly to defeat the judgment
of respondent court in Civil Case No. 8077 affirmed by the Court on May 5,
1956.  On October 30, 1956 respondent
Court in implementation of said decision ordered the placing of the properties subject of
litigation in the hands of a judicial administrator
who was to submit an accounting of the fruits and products thereof after which
a partition of said properties and the fruits thereof would be made (Lajom v. Leuterio, 107 Phil 651,
654).  In December 1956 co-administrator
Manuel Gallego, Jr. took over the administration of
the properties of the estate, among them, Lot No. 314, appearing in his
verified report of May 31, 1959 as Inventory Item No. 34 of Annex B, Table II
of the report which is a list of properties under administration since 1956 (Rollo, p. 31). 
However, with­out the knowledge and
consent of respondent court, while said administration of the properties and
accounting of the fruits of the same properties were in progress, Rafael Viola
made the sale to the petitioners. 
Afterwards, on December 6, 1966,
Rafael Viola adjudicated to
himself Lot 314-B-2 securing a title thereto in his name under TCT NO. NT-66682 (Rollo, p. 23).  As the annotations at the back of TCT No.
11682 show, Lots 314-A and 314-B belong
to a certain Paz Villaruz Viola by virtue of a sale
dated October 9, 1937 and
another sale dated March 15, 1939.

On the same date that TCT No. NT-66682 was obtained, it was
cancelled by TCT NT-66683 in the name of petitioners Mario Tanchoco,
Pastor Tanchoco and Agripina
Tanchoco covering Lot
314-B-2-A (Rollo, p. 26), and TCT NT-66684 in the
name of petitioners Inocencia Tanchoco,
Liberata Tanchoco and
Trinidad Tanchoco, covering Lot
314-B-2-B (Rollo, p. 28).  It appears that on the same date it was
annotated at the back of TCT No. 11682 that by virtue of the decision of the
Court in G.R. No. L-6457, one-seventh (1/7) of one half (1/2) of Lot
314-B-2 was adjudicated to Donato Lajom,
the original plaintiff of Civil Case No. 8077 (Rollo,
p. 23).  The notice of lis pendens was not
carried over in the new titles notwithstanding the fact that said notice was
subsisting as there was no order issued by respondent Court for its cancellation.  It was only after the hearing of the motion
for contempt filed by private
res­pondents Vicenta T. Vda.
de Lajom and Jose T. Lajom that the existing notice of lis pendens was annotated at the
back of TCT NT-66683 and TCT NT-66684 by order of respondent Court dated June 15, 1967 (Rollo,
p. 37).

The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is precisely to avoid such sales pending the
execution of a court’s judgment.  The
doctrine of lis pendens
is founded upon reason of public policy and necessity, the purpose of which is
to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court
until the judgment or decree shall have been entered; otherwise, by successive
alienations pending the litigation, its judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and
impossible of execu­tion.  (Laroza v. Guia,
134 SCRA 341 [1985]).  Purchasers
pendente lite
of the property subject of the litigation after the notice of lis pendens
is inscribed in the Office of the Register of Deeds are bound by the judgment
against their predecessor (Correa v. Pascual, 99 Phil. 696 [1956]).  They will be held to have bought the land in
bad faith since they are charged with notice of the existence of the litigation
over the property in question (Bancairan v. Diones, 98 Phil. 122 [1955]).  Furthermore, a conveyance of property, which
is manifestly fraudulent, to defeat a
judgment in favor of judgment creditors is null and void (Nerona v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 133 SCRA 837
[1985]).  Such a situation appears to exist in this instant case.

Second, in the hearing of
the contempt portion of the motion for contempt and to return lot 314 to the
estate of the late Dr. Maximo Viola, petitioners were
notified of the entire motion and as mentioned in the order of
respondent Court dated June 15, 1967. 
Petitioners appeared as defendants and even manifested to
respondent Court through counsel, that they would cause to be annotated at the
back of TCT No. NT-66683 and TCT No. NT-66684 the
existing annotation on the title from which the said two titles had been
derived (Rollo, p. 37).

Third, the compromise
agreement entered into by the protagonists in Civil Case No. 8077
covered all the properties belonging to the estate of the late Maximo Viola described in the inventory attached to private
Respondent Donato Lajom’s
original complaint in Civil Case No. 8077, which properties were placed in the
hands of a judicial administrator, including of course the undivided one-half of Lot 314, not only appearing in the
verified report dated May 31, 1959 of the administrator Manuel Gallego, Jr. as Inventory Item No. 34 (Rollo,
p. 31) but also in the inventory attached to the complaint as Item No. 14,
Annex A (Rollo, p. 30).  Lot 314
therefore is covered by the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 8077
subsequently affirmed by the Court in Case No. L-6457 and
among those subject to be partitioned between plaintiff and defendants in said
case.  In approving the
compromise agreement and later on paragraph 2 of the compromise agreement which
pertain to Rafael Viola’s conveyance and adjudication to private respondent Lajom of the undivided
one-half of Lot 314 as part of the latter’s share on the estate left by Dr. Maximo Viola, the effectivity of
which the parties themselves stipulated at first to hold in abe­yance until the
lot has been returned to the administrator by order of respondent court, the
latter was merely enforcing the aforementioned decision in Civil Case No. 8077
affirmed by this Court in case No. L-6457.  Said decision has already become final.  Any order directing what was not required in
said deci­sion would be in excess of its jurisdiction and therefore, null and
void (Lajom v. Leuterio and
Viola, 107 Phil. 651 [1960]).

As the transferees pendente lite of the property involved in the litigation stand exactly in the shoes
of their predecessor in interest, Petitioners as such are bound by the
proceedings in the case (Fatalino v. Sanz, 44 Phil. 691 [1923]). 
The Register is now asking petitioners to surrender their titles, and
petitioners may not properly refuse, because they received their titles from
the Register upon their undertaking to respect the outcome of the litigation,
the title being expressly subject thereto, by the annotation of lis pendens (Selph V. Vda. de Aguilar, 107 Phil. 443 [1960]).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of merit and the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the Court on July 28, 1969 restraining the execution and implementation of respondent Court’s orders of
June 25 and July 3, 1968 and the writ of possession of May 29, 1969 in Civil Case No. 8077 are hereby lifted permanently.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
and Cruz, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., on leave.