Lazaro v. Mariano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellants Clemente A. Lazaro and Maria Simon filed a complaint against Feliciana Mariano, seeking to rescind a contract of sale and cancel Certificate of Title No. 9303, requesting a new title in their names. On November 26, 1928, a notice of lis pendens was annotated on the said title. Procedural History: Civil Case No. 5073 was dismissed on July 2, 1929, due to the plaintiffs' failure to appear and their counsel's unreadiness for trial. A motion for reinstatement was denied on September 11, 1929. On July 30, 1929, the order of dismissal was noted on the title. Subsequently, on September 23, 1929, Feliciana Mariano executed two mortgage deeds (Exhibits B and C) on the property in favor of Carmen Juliana Garricho and Francisco Aguado. The Appeal: The plaintiffs-appellants appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, which declared the deed Exhibit A null and void, cancelled Certificate of Title No. 9303, ordered the issuance of a new title in the plaintiffs' names, but noted the mortgage liens in favor of the appellees and absolved them from the complaint. The appellants assigned errors concerning the legality of the annotation of the dismissal order, the appellees' alleged bad faith, the nullity of the mortgages, and the denial of a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the notation of an order dismissing a civil case for failure to appear operates as a valid cancellation of a notice of lis pendens. Whether an order of dismissal based on the plaintiff's failure to appear is a final and appealable order.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is affirmed in toto. The deed Exhibit A is declared null and void, and Certificate of Title No. 9303 is ordered cancelled, with a new title to be issued in the names of the plaintiffs-appellants. However, the mortgage liens evidenced by Exhibits B and C in favor of the defendants-appellees Carmen Juliana Garricho and Francisco Aguado are upheld, and the appellees are absolved from the complaint. The indemnity prayed for by the plaintiffs is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the notation of the order of dismissal issued in Civil Case No. 5073, which eliminated the case from the court's docket, operated as a cancellation of the notation of the pendency thereof. Under the principles of Remedial Law, specifically citing 38 Corpus Juris, the dismissal of a complaint removes the legal basis for a lis pendens annotation. The Court emphasized that due to the delay in filing the new complaint—from July 1929 to June 1930—the plaintiffs effectively lost the benefit of the lis pendens. Because the registry showed the dismissal of the previous case, the subsequent mortgagees were entitled to rely on the record. Thus, the mortgages executed in favor of Garricho and Aguado were valid as they were entered into after the dismissal was noted and before any new litigation was commenced. On Issue 2: The Court held that an order dismissing a civil case upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff's failure to appear is not final and does not constitute res judicata. Pursuant to Section 127, case 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a dismissal is not a bar to another action for the same cause. Because it does not finally determine the controversy, the order is not appealable under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's only remedies are to seek reinstatement or to file a new complaint. Consequently, the argument that the notation was void because the order was not 'final' for purposes of appeal is misplaced, as the order was never subject to the standard appeal periods applicable to final judgments.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that an order dismissing a civil case due to the plaintiff's failure to appear, upon the defendant's petition, is not a final judgment on the merits and is therefore not appealable. Such a dismissal effectively cancels any notice of lis pendens previously annotated on the property involved in the case. Furthermore, if the plaintiff fails to promptly refile the action or seek reinstatement, they may lose the benefit of the lis pendens, allowing subsequent encumbrances to take precedence.