Montelibano v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Alejandro and Gliceria Montelibano died, leaving four children: Jose M., Alfredo M., Concepcion, and Alejandro. Their estates were settled through Civil Cases Nos. 4281 and 4428, with a project of partition approved on July 21, 1931. Jose M. Montelibano died in 1944, leaving a son, Alfredo L. Montelibano. Procedural History: On March 12, 1957, Concepcion Montelibano and Alfredo L. Montelibano (petitioners) filed Civil Case No. 4274 against Alfredo M. Montelibano (respondent), seeking to annul the previous project of partition and its approval, and to have a new partition made, or alternatively, to transfer specific properties to them. On the same date, petitioners annotated a notice of lis pendens on the certificates of title of properties adjudicated to the respondent. The Petition: On October 9, 1958, respondent moved to cancel the notice of lis pendens concerning "Hacienda Binitin" or to require petitioners to post a bond. The trial court granted the motion in an order dated October 22, 1958, cancelling the notice of lis pendens on specific certificates of title. Petitioners sought reconsideration, which was denied by an order dated April 11, 1962. Petitioners then filed the present original action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge in issuing these orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens concerning "Hacienda Binitin".
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied, and the case is dismissed. The orders of the respondent Judge dated October 22, 1958, and April 11, 1962, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The Court reiterated that the grant or denial of such a motion is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. A writ of certiorari is only available to correct a grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment or a refusal to perform a duty. The Court found that the grounds relied upon by the respondent Judge for cancellation were reasonable. These included the fact that "Hacienda Binitin" was only one of many properties involved, that at least one-half of its share was not litigated, that other properties of the respondent were sufficient to satisfy the petitioners' claims if upheld, and that the notice of lis pendens only affected the respondent's properties, leaving petitioners free to enjoy their adjudicated shares. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial had not even begun at the time of the first order and that the chances of an early termination were slim, suggesting that the notice might be unduly hindering the respondent's rights without commensurate protection for the petitioners. The Court was not prepared to conclude that the respondent Judge had abused his discretion, much less gravely, in resolving these considerations in favor of cancellation.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order cancelling a notice of lis pendens, holding that the cancellation was a proper exercise of discretion. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, emphasizing that the properties subject to the notice were sufficient to protect the petitioners' alleged rights should their claim prevail, and that the trial court had considered the circumstances, including the delay in the proceedings and the potential prejudice to the respondent. The petition for certiorari was therefore denied.