Casim Construction Supplies v. Registrar of Deeds
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: J. Casim Construction Supplies, Inc. (petitioner) is the registered owner of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 49936, covering a 10,715-square meter land acquired in 1982. The petitioner claims its owner's duplicate copy of the title was clean upon delivery. However, the original copy of the title on file with the Register of Deeds contained several annotations, including an adverse claim by Bruneo F. Casim and a notice of lis pendens related to Civil Case No. LP-9438-P, filed by Bruneo F. Casim against several defendants, including the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner. Procedural History: On March 22, 2004, the petitioner filed an original petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 253, seeking the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens and other involuntary encumbrances annotated on TCT No. 49936. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens must be sought from the court where the main action is pending. The RTC denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Intestate Estate of Bruneo F. Casim intervened, supporting the dismissal and arguing that the main case had already attained finality. The Petition: This petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse the RTC's dismissal. The petitioner argues that a trial court has the inherent power to cancel a notice of lis pendens in an original action, especially when the petitioner was not a party to the underlying litigation. Petitioner also contends that the RTC erred in not ruling on the alleged forgery of the notice of lis pendens, citing non-chronological entries and the absence of transaction records. Petitioner further asserts the indefeasibility of its title and its status as an innocent purchaser for value. The intervenor reiterates that the RTC lacked jurisdiction and that the petition lacks legal basis, as the main case has been decided with finality.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 253, has jurisdiction to entertain an original action for the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens annotated on a certificate of title, when such notice relates to a main action pending before another court. Whether the alleged forgery of the notice of lis pendens and the non-chronological annotation thereof constitute sufficient grounds for cancellation in an independent action, and whether the indefeasibility of the petitioner's Torrens title and its status as an innocent purchaser for value can be determined in an original action for cancellation of a notice of lis pendens.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolution and Order of the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 253, dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Jurisdiction to Cancel a Notice of Lis Pendens: The Court reiterated that a notice of lis pendens is a precautionary measure intended to keep property in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of a judgment by subsequent alienation. Once duly registered, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled by the trial court before which the action involving the property is pending. This power is ancillary to the main action. The Court emphasized that the notice of lis pendens in this case was registered at the instance of Bruneo F. Casim in relation to Civil Case No. LP-9438-P, an annulment of sale and recovery of real property case, filed before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62. Therefore, the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 253, which was not the court handling the main action, correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court cited established jurisprudence, including Vda. de Kilayko v. Judge Tengco, Heirs of Maria Marasigan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, and Tanchoco v. Aquino, which hold that the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is a mere incident of the main action and can only be ordered by the court having jurisdiction over it. On the Allegations of Forgery and Indefeasibility of Title: The Court declined to rule on the petitioner's allegations of forgery and the indefeasibility of its Torrens title. It explained that these matters raise factual issues that require a full trial and are beyond the competence of the Supreme Court to resolve in a petition for review on certiorari, which is limited to questions of law. The Court reiterated that forgery cannot be presumed merely from alleged non-chronological entries but must be positively proven. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's owner's duplicate title not reflecting the annotations, while the original copy did, presented a factual dispute that could not be settled in the present proceedings. The proper forum for such factual determinations would be a court with jurisdiction over the main case or a separate action specifically for that purpose. The Court also noted that the main case, Civil Case No. LP-9438-P, had already attained finality as its decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court on appeal. Consequently, the notice of lis pendens, having served its purpose, had become functus officio. The rights of the parties, including the petitioner, are now governed by the final decision in that annulment case. The Court also pointed out that Section 77 of P.D. No. 1529 provides for the administrative cancellation of a notice of lis pendens after final judgment by presenting a certificate from the clerk of court to the Register of Deeds, indicating that the main action has been finally decided.
Main Doctrine
A trial court's power to cancel a notice of lis pendens is merely ancillary to the main action to which the notice relates, and thus, such cancellation must be sought before the court exercising jurisdiction over the main case, not through an original action before a court lacking such jurisdiction. Once the main case has attained finality, the notice of lis pendens becomes functus officio.