Sarmiento v. Ortiz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a verified complaint filed by Lorenzo C. Atega against William Lasam, Marciana E. Lasam, the Philippine National Bank, and the Register of Deeds of Butuan City. The complaint sought the annulment of Original Certificate of Title No. RO-99 (N.A.), which covered Lot No. 436-A, Butuan Townsite TS-65. A notice of lis pendens was filed and recorded on this title. 2. Procedural History: Following the filing of the complaint and the notice of lis pendens, the plaintiff, Lorenzo C. Atega, died. His counsel informed the court of this fact and requested a suspension of proceedings until his heirs could be substituted. The court issued an order for the filing of an amended complaint with substitution, though counsel claims not to have received it. Subsequently, the defendants William Lasam and Marciana E. Lasam filed an ex-parte motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens, which the respondent judge granted. The petitioner, Vicente D. Sarmiento, appointed as judicial administrator, was later allowed to substitute the deceased and moved to set aside the cancellation order, but his motion and subsequent reconsideration were denied. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the respondent judge's order canceling the notice of lis pendens. The petitioner argues that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. The respondents, citing previous case law, justified the cancellation due to alleged unnecessary delay by the petitioner and his counsel, which they claimed prejudiced their ability to dispose of the property. The petitioner contends that the delay was not attributable to him or his counsel, particularly given the circumstances of the plaintiff's death and the alleged lack of notice of the court's order to file an amended complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. Whether the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens was unduly precipitated.
Ruling
The writ prayed for is granted, and the respondent Judge's order directing the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens is annulled.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens: The Court held that the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The cancellation was based on an ex parte motion by the defendants, despite the ongoing process of substituting the deceased plaintiff. The plaintiff's counsel had informed the court of the plaintiff's death and was awaiting information to effect the substitution. The court's order of March 5, 1960, directing the filing of an amended complaint with substitution, was not effectively received by counsel, and even if it were, counsel could not have complied as he did not yet represent the heirs. Therefore, the delay, if any, could not be attributed to the petitioner or his counsel. The cancellation of the notice of lis pendens was unduly precipitated and should have been preceded by proper notification to the counsel for the deceased plaintiff. On the issue of whether the cancellation was unduly precipitated: The Court found that the cancellation was indeed unduly precipitated. The respondent Judge, in his order of March 5, 1960, still seemed to believe that the counsel for the deceased plaintiff could continue to represent the estate or the heirs. Consequently, this counsel should have been notified of the motion for cancellation. The ex parte nature of the motion and the lack of proper notice to the counsel for the deceased plaintiff rendered the cancellation order improper. The Court reiterated that a trial court has discretionary power to cancel a notice of lis pendens, but this discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, especially when the substitution of parties is pending.
Main Doctrine
A trial court commits grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens upon an ex parte motion, especially when the plaintiff's counsel had not been properly notified of the motion and the proceedings were in the process of substitution due to the plaintiff's death.