G.R. No. L-22814 - Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. vs. City of Butuan

The case involves Lot 435 of the Bacolod cadastre, originally titled in the name of petitioners’ predecessor, Prudencio Fernandez, who acquired the property and later attempted to eject certain occupants.
Private respondent Jesus Ciocon, one of the occupants, allegedly negotiated a “last chance” repurchase of the lot with Fernandez, which was refused, triggering subsequent litigation.

On September 21, 1985, Ciocon filed Civil Case No. 7687 against Fernandez seeking reconveyance of the lot or its remaining portions after deducting lands already sold.
Following Fernandez’s death on January 23, 1966, his heirs—for example, Eduardo, Teresita, Leticia, Adolfo, Gloria, Zenaida, and Esmerna—substituted as parties to the suit.
Additional intervenors and private respondents (including Levita Llera, Hospicio Pedrina, Rufo Calves, Monserrat Villalba, Alfonso Jardenil, Anunciacion Jover, and Vicente Urbanozo) later joined the litigation, with some claiming to have purchased parts of the lot from Ciocon.
Civil Case Nos. 7687 and 7723 were eventually consolidated.

On May 30, 1988, Judge Enrique Jocson of RTC Branch 47 rendered a first decision dismissing both complaints and ordering Ciocon and the intervenors to deliver immediate possession of Lot 435 to the heirs of Fernandez.
Appeals against the first decision were timely filed by private respondents and intervenors on July 29, 1988.
Due to incomplete records and the absence of full testimonies (notably that of a handwriting expert, Roberto Tolentino), the trial court later ordered on March 12, 1990, the re-transmission of records and subsequently, on July 29, 1988, issued an order transmitting the case records to the Court of Appeals.

On September 30, 1991, Ciocon filed a Motion to have the case “decided anew.” Judge Jocson granted this motion on October 3, 1991, leading to a second decision issued on October 15, 1991.

The second decision set aside the May 30, 1988, judgment and ordered the return of the disputed lot (save portions still being litigated) to Ciocon and the intervenors.
It also ordered cancellation of a new title issued to Fernandez and directed the issuance of a new title in favor of Ciocon and the intervenors.

Subsequently, on October 29, 1991, Ciocon moved for execution pending appeal, which the trial court granted ex parte on November 4, 1991.
As part of the chain of events, a notice of lis pendens (Entry No. 178073) was annotated on TCT No. T-164785.
On July 23, 1992, Judge Jocson ordered the cancellation of certain entries, including Entry No. 178073, despite evidence that this entry was not part of Ciocon’s original motion for cancellation.

After the cancellation order, Ciocon sold Lot 435 to Eduardo Gargar, who mortgaged the property to secure a loan, thereby complicating the dispute.
Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus on February 2, 1993, seeking:

Annulment of the RTC order dated July 23, 1992, cancelling the lis pendens (Entry No. 178073).
Re-annotation of the said notice on the title.
Annulment of the RTC decision of October 15, 1991 (which set aside the original May 30, 1988, decision) along with the order granting execution pending appeal.

The petition also sought to review the Court of Appeals’ resolution dated May 30, 1994, that denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The petitioners argued that:

The entry cancellation was null and void because no motion was filed specifically for Entry No. 178073.
The trial court had lost jurisdiction once the appeal from its first decision was perfected.
The ex parte nature of the execution order and subsequent cancellation breached due process.

On February 17, 1994, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and directed the designated trial court judge to cease further proceedings and elevate the records on appeal.
The appellate court reasoned that:

A regular appeal, which had been timely filed, was a more appropriate and available remedy than the extraordinary petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
The issues of rightful ownership and possession must await a definitive final judgment in the appeal.

Whether the Regional Trial Court retains the authority to issue orders—specifically the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens and the granting of execution pending appeal—after the perfection of an appeal from its earlier decision.
Whether the trial court’s actions in this regard were proper under the doctrine that jurisdiction is fixed and cannot be acquired or extended once an appeal is perfected.

Whether the cancellation of Entry No. 178073 on TCT No. T-165298 was valid, given that:

There was no expressed or proper motion for its cancellation (Ciocon’s motion referred only to certain other entries).
The cancellation was made ex parte, thereby depriving petitioners of the opportunity for a hearing and due process.

Whether the absence of a hearing or notice invalidates the trial court’s order cancelling the lis pendens.

Whether the remedy of appeal, as acknowledged by the Court of Appeals, was indeed the more speedy and adequate method for resolving the dispute.
Whether petitioners’ extraordinary remedy, seeking annulment of the cancellation order and other related orders, should have been entertained given the availability of a proper appellate process.