Diaz v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Roberta Diaz y Cruz, an 83-year-old woman possessing substantial properties, was the subject of a Petition filed by three of her children and two grandchildren seeking to declare her incompetent and appoint a guardian. This special proceeding was filed in the Rizal Court of First Instance. Procedural History: While the guardianship proceeding was pending, Roberta Diaz was informed that a notice of lis pendens had been annotated on her property's Transfer Certificate of Title due to the said proceedings. She filed a petition to cancel the lis pendens, which was opposed and subsequently denied by the respondent judge. Her motion for reconsideration was also denied. Roberta Diaz filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond. The Petition: The respondent judge disapproved the record on appeal, holding that the orders appealed from were interlocutory and thus not appealable. Consequently, Roberta Diaz filed a petition for mandamus and certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the approval of the record on appeal and to annul the order refusing the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens.
Issue(s)
Whether mandamus lies to compel the approval of a record on appeal from an order disapproving the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens. Whether certiorari lies to annul the order refusing to cancel the notice of lis pendens. Whether the annotation of a notice of lis pendens is proper in guardianship proceedings. Whether guardianship proceedings fall within the scope of statutes and rules governing the annotation of lis pendens.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The order disapproving the record on appeal is affirmed, and the order refusing to cancel the notice of lis pendens is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of mandamus: The Court held that mandamus does not lie because the order disapproving the record on appeal was interlocutory. Section 2 of Rule 41 explicitly states that interlocutory orders cannot be the subject of appeal until a final judgment is rendered. This is comparable to orders refusing to annul a preliminary attachment or denying/granting a preliminary injunction, which have also been held to be interlocutory and non-appealable. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court found that the petitioner could not seriously urge a lack of jurisdiction for certiorari. By asking the Court to annul the lis pendens, she implicitly admitted the jurisdiction of the lower court to pass upon the matter of annulment, and consequently, to refuse annulment. On the propriety of lis pendens in guardianship proceedings: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the annotation of the lis pendens. The purpose of a lis pendens is to advise potential buyers that a case is pending concerning the property, allowing them to protect their interests. In this case, the guardianship petition alleged instances where the alleged incompetent disposed of properties to persons taking undue advantage of her age and condition, making the lis pendens a proper cautionary measure. On the applicability of statutes to guardianship proceedings: The Court clarified that Section 79 of Act No. 496 and Section 24 of Rule 7 are not exclusive enumerations of cases where lis pendens may be annotated. Furthermore, guardianship proceedings affect the use and even the title to real estate by curtailing the owner's right to dispose of it. The Court also noted that civil rules are generally applicable to special proceedings, and that equity and general convenience may justify the use of lis pendens in situations akin to lunacy proceedings, as held in previous cases. The Court also pointed out that the lower court eventually found Roberta Diaz to be incompetent, which vindicated the annotation and the refusal to cancel it.
Main Doctrine
A notice of lis pendens is a proper and cautionary measure in guardianship proceedings where the alleged incompetent's disposition of properties is questioned, and the disapproval of a record on appeal from an order refusing to cancel such notice is not appealable as the order is interlocutory.