Yared v. Ilarde
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and registration of two parcels of land, Lots 3244 and 3246 in Iloilo City. Petitioner Estrella Tiongco Yared alleged that respondent Jose B. Tiongco fraudulently obtained title to these properties by filing an affidavit of adjudication claiming to be the sole surviving heir of Maria Luis de Tiongco. Petitioner, as another surviving heir, contended that the affidavit prejudiced her rightful share and sought reconveyance of the properties to the original owners for proper partition, along with damages. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an amended complaint for annulment of documents and reconveyance. To protect her claim, she annotated notices of lis pendens on the relevant Transfer Certificates of Title. After several motions for cancellation of these notices were denied, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed petitioner's complaint, finding her cause of action had prescribed. Petitioner appealed this decision. Subsequently, the RTC, through a series of reconsiderations, initially cancelled the lis pendens notices, then reversed itself, and finally, in an order dated March 17, 1994, reinstated the cancellation of the lis pendens notices, reasoning that the cancellation was a proper incident that the court could still act upon before the records were transmitted to the appellate court. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the RTC's March 17, 1994 Order that reinstated the cancellation of the lis pendens notices. Petitioner argued that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, primarily citing the petitioner's failure to observe the doctrine of judicial hierarchy by filing the petition directly with the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeals, which already had jurisdiction over the main appeal. The Court also noted the improper and unethical language used by respondent Jose B. Tiongco in his pleadings.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of the notices of lis pendens. Whether the petition should be dismissed for violating the doctrine of judicial hierarchy.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals in observance of the doctrine of judicial hierarchy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of judicial hierarchy: The Supreme Court reiterated its policy against direct resort to it for extraordinary writs when such relief can be obtained from lower courts. The Court emphasized that its original jurisdiction to issue writs like certiorari is shared with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals. Parties are expected to observe the hierarchy of courts, filing petitions with the RTC for writs against first-level courts, and with the Court of Appeals for writs against RTCs. Direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is permissible only when there are special and important reasons, clearly and specifically set out in the petition, or when the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. In this case, the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for bypassing the Court of Appeals, especially since her appeal in the main case was already pending before that court. The cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is considered a mere incident in an action and could have been consolidated with the appeal before the Court of Appeals. On the merits of the cancellation of lis pendens (as a secondary consideration due to dismissal on procedural grounds): The Court noted that a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled on two grounds: (1) if it was for the purpose of molesting the title of the adverse party, or (2) when it is not necessary to protect the title of the party who caused it to be recorded. The RTC, in its February 14, 1994 Order, found that the continued annotation was intended to molest respondent Tiongco and was unnecessary to protect petitioner's rights, given the RTC's finding of prescription and other circumstances. The Court also acknowledged that the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is an incident that does not affect the merits of the main case and can be ordered by the court having jurisdiction over it, even before final judgment, provided it does not involve matters litigated in the appeal and the records have not yet been transmitted. However, the primary reason for dismissal was the violation of judicial hierarchy.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari assailing an order cancelling a notice of lis pendens should ordinarily be filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court, in observance of the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, unless there are exceptional and compelling reasons justifying a direct resort to the highest court.