Victoriano v. Rovira
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Pacifico Victoriano purchased a lot with buildings for P80,000, paying P8,000 cash and assuming P72,000 in mortgages. The property was used for his school, "Colegio Liceo de Manila." Respondent Francisco J. Gonzalez, who held one of the mortgages for P47,000, threatened foreclosure due to unpaid interest. To prevent the school's transfer, Victoriano executed a deed of sale of his remaining interest in the property to Gonzalez for P2,500 and a lease agreement for P700 per month. Transfer certificate of title was issued to Gonzalez. Procedural History: Victoriano failed to pay rent, leading Gonzalez to file an unlawful detainer suit. Victoriano subsequently filed an action for annulment of the deed of sale and lease, alleging insidious machinations and threats. The municipal court certified the detainer case to the Court of First Instance (CFI), where it was consolidated with the annulment case. After several continuances, mostly at Victoriano's instance, Gonzalez moved for a bond of P10,000 to answer for damages caused by Victoriano's notice of lis pendens, which prevented Gonzalez from disposing of the property. Judge Rovira ordered Victoriano to post a P5,000 bond within five days, or the lis pendens would be cancelled. Judge Sison denied Victoriano's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Victoriano filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the respondent judges exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, as it was duly filed and courts cannot cancel such notices before final judgment except as provided by statute.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judges exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. Whether a court has the inherent power to cancel a notice of lis pendens in the absence of a specific statutory provision.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the respondent judges did not exceed their jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens under the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judges exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens: The Supreme Court acknowledged that ordinarily, a properly filed notice of lis pendens cannot be cancelled while the action is pending, except as provided by statute. However, the Court found that exceptions may exist. In this case, the Court considered the "peculiar circumstances" which justified the judges' actions. Victoriano filed his action more than a year after the sale, and the evidence presented did not fully support his allegations. Furthermore, Victoriano was responsible for most of the continuances, suggesting a desire to prolong the litigation and retain possession without paying rent. The accumulated overdue rent alone exceeded P17,000, making the requirement of a P5,000 bond and the subsequent cancellation of the lis pendens upon failure to post it a reasonable measure to protect Gonzalez's interests. The Court concluded that, given these factors, it could not hold that the court below exceeded its jurisdiction. On the issue of whether a court has the inherent power to cancel a notice of lis pendens in the absence of a specific statutory provision: The Supreme Court affirmed that while statutes may provide for cancellation, courts possess inherent power to cancel a lis pendens in a proper case, even without explicit statutory authorization. This inherent power is recognized to prevent abuse and injustice. The Court cited the case of Sternberger vs. Tunison as precedent for this inherent power. The circumstances of the case, including the delay in filing the action, the lack of substantial evidence presented by the petitioner, and the significant amount of unpaid rent, demonstrated a situation where the continued annotation of the lis pendens would cause undue prejudice to the respondent, thus warranting the exercise of this inherent power by the lower court.
Main Doctrine
A court may, in the exercise of its inherent power and in proper circumstances, order the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens even in the absence of a specific statutory provision, particularly when the action appears to be prolonged unduly and the plaintiff's allegations are not sufficiently borne out by evidence, and to prevent potential damages to the defendant.