Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership of certain lots within the Magdalena Rolling Hills subdivision. The residents, organized as the Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc., claimed that a portion of Lot 15, Block 18, originally designated as an "open space" for recreational use, could not be sold or encumbered. The subdivision owner, Magdalena Estate, Inc. (MEI), had the subdivision plan amended, substituting the original open space with other lots and subsequently disposing of the original open space area. MEI conveyed a significant portion of this area to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) via dacion en pago, and sold the remainder to third parties who built homes. 2. Procedural History: The homeowners association filed a complaint (Civil Case No. Q-18223) in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City against MEI and later the Quezon City Government, seeking the recovery of Lot 15 as open space. During the pendency of this case, notices of lis pendens were inscribed on the titles of the affected lots. The trial court dismissed the complaint against the Quezon City government but ordered MEI to allow the recovery of the space for donation to the city. Dissatisfied, the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. While the appeal was pending, MEI and DBP moved for the cancellation of the notices of lis pendens, which the Court of Appeals granted in a resolution dated December 10, 1981, and later denied reconsideration on February 8, 1982. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a special civil action of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the resolutions of the Court of Appeals canceling the notices of lis pendens. They argued that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion for cancellation as it was not filed in the lower court. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Court of Appeals had appellate jurisdiction over the case and thus had the power to resolve incidents related to the action, including the cancellation of lis pendens, especially when the annotation was found to be for the purpose of molesting the adverse party. The Court affirmed that the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is a mere incident in an action and can be ordered by the court having jurisdiction at any time.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain and grant the motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated December 10, 1981, and February 8, 1982, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to cancel the notice of lis pendens: The Court held that the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is a mere incident in an action. Once a case properly comes within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, it has the power to deal with and resolve any incident connected with the action subject of the appeal, even before final judgment. The rule that no questions may be raised for the first time on appeal pertains only to issues affecting the merits of the action, not to mere incidents like the cancellation of notices of lis pendens or the grant or dissolution of provisional remedies. Therefore, the Court of Appeals had the jurisdiction to act on the motion. On whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the Court of Appeals determined, as a matter of fact, that the case had been unnecessarily prolonged by repeated amendments of the complaints by the plaintiffs. The circumstances on record justified the conclusion that the annotation of the notice of lis pendens was intended to molest and harass the defendants. This determination was not whimsical, capricious, despotic, arbitrary, or oppressive, and thus did not warrant correction by certiorari. The Court reiterated that Presidential Decree No. 1529 authorizes the cancellation of notices of lis pendens before final judgment upon order of the Court, upon proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party or is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded.
Main Doctrine
The cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is a mere incident in an action and may be ordered by the court having jurisdiction of it at any given time, even before final judgment, provided there is a proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party or is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded. The Court of Appeals, having acquired appellate jurisdiction over the case, has the power to deal with and resolve such incidents.