St. Mary of the Woods School v. Office of the Registry of Deeds
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Hilario P. Soriano seeking the nullity of a Deed of Assignment and a Deed of Sale, and the cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) concerning properties in Makati City. Hilario alleged that his deceased father, Tomas Q. Soriano, purportedly assigned these properties to Oro Development Corporation (ODC) to cover stock subscriptions. Hilario claimed his father's signature on the Deed of Assignment was forged, and that he had not received his rightful share of the inheritance. The properties were subsequently transferred from ODC to St. Mary of the Woods School, Inc. (SMWSI), with Marcial P. Soriano, Hilario's brother and President of SMWSI, being a key figure in these transactions. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed Hilario's complaint, finding that he failed to state a cause of action, that his claim was extinguished by waiver or laches due to his acknowledgment of receiving his share of the inheritance, and that he failed to comply with the requirement of earnest efforts toward compromise between family members. The RTC also ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens annotated on the TCTs. Hilario appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA). While the appeal was pending, the CA issued resolutions that reinstated the notice of lis pendens and denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the appeal, leading to the filing of two separate petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners St. Mary of the Woods School, Inc. and Marcial P. Soriano filed two consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. In G.R. No. 174290, they challenge the CA's resolution reinstating the notice of lis pendens, arguing it was an abuse of discretion as the RTC had already determined Hilario had no interest to protect and that the cancellation was proper. They also contend they were excused from filing a motion for reconsideration due to urgency and public interest. In G.R. No. 176116, they challenge the CA's denial of their motion to dismiss Hilario's appeal, asserting the appeal raised only questions of law, which should have been filed directly with the Supreme Court under Rule 45, and that the CA had no jurisdiction to order an NBI signature analysis. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed both petitions, finding the petitioners failed to exhaust remedies and that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the Petition for Certiorari for failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the Notice of Lis Pendens. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed both Petitions for Certiorari. It held that petitioners failed to comply with the procedural requirement of filing a Motion for Reconsideration before filing a Petition for Certiorari, and no exceptions applied. Furthermore, even assuming the petitions were given due course, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration: The Court held that petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of filing a Motion for Reconsideration before resorting to a Petition for Certiorari. The reasons provided by petitioners for excusing this requirement, such as urgency and public interest, were found to be baseless and unsubstantiated. The Court emphasized that this rule is intended to give the lower court an opportunity to correct errors, and exceptions are strictly construed. Without a valid exception, the petition must be dismissed on procedural grounds. On the reinstatement of the Notice of Lis Pendens: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals' decision to reinstate the Notice of Lis Pendens. It reasoned that once the RTC's dismissal order was appealed, the Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, it was within the appellate court's power to ascertain the propriety of canceling the Notice of Lis Pendens, especially since the properties were still the subject of litigation and had been involved in transactions with third parties. The Court reiterated the purpose of lis pendens, which is to protect the rights of parties and to warn the public. On the denial of the Motion to Dismiss Appeal: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals' denial of the Motion to Dismiss Appeal. The Court clarified that while the dismissal of the Complaint for failure to state a cause of action might involve a question of law, the RTC's other grounds for dismissal, such as the claim being paid, waived, or extinguished, and the failure to comply with a condition precedent, necessarily involved a determination of facts. Therefore, the appeal raised mixed questions of fact and law, making it properly cognizable by the Court of Appeals. The Court also noted that the RTC itself had made a preliminary finding on the issue of forgery, which further supported the need for factual determination.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will be dismissed for failure to file a motion for reconsideration, unless a recognized exception applies. The Court of Appeals, having acquired jurisdiction over an appealed case, has the authority to pass upon the propriety of the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens.