G.R. No. 247589 - Plan, Jr. y Beloncio vs. People

Petitioner: J. Casim Construction Supplies, Inc., a duly organized domestic corporation represented by Rogelio C. Casim.
Property: A 10,715-square meter land originally covered by TCT No. 30459, acquired by petitioner through a Deed of Absolute Sale in 1982.
Title Transition: The original (mother) title, TCT No. 30459, was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 49936.

Owner’s Duplicate vs. Original Copy: The petitioner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 49936 was clean, while the original copy on file with the Register of Deeds contained several annotations, including a notice of lis pendens and other involuntary encumbrances.
Specific Annotations:

Entry for an adverse claim by Bruno F. Casim, allegedly based on an affidavit and documented in various notarial records.
Subsequent entries canceling the adverse claim and noting an affidavit regarding the cancellation of the previous title.
The contentious notice of lis pendens, which was registered with dates pointing to non-chronological entries and alleged inconsistencies in the inscriber’s signature.

Date and Claim: On March 22, 2004, petitioner filed an original petition before the RTC of Las PiAas City, Branch 253, seeking cancellation of the notice of lis pendens and other annotations on TCT No. 49936.
Ground for Cancellation:

Allegation that the notice of lis pendens was a forgery, evidenced by the inconsistencies such as non-chronological inscription and questionable signature authenticity.
Argument that the absence of any supporting transaction record on file negated the validity of the annotation.
Assertion that under Section 59 of PD No. 1529, the petitioner’s clean duplicate title implies its status as an innocent purchaser for value and supports the indefeasibility of its Torrens title.

Intervenor: The Intestate Estate of Bruno F. Casim, representing the interests of Bruno F. Casim, intervened by filing a Comment/Opposition.
Opposition Arguments:

The RTC of Las PiAas City did not have jurisdiction over the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens because such matters are incident to the main action and fall within the exclusive purview of the court where the main litigation is pending.
The notice of lis pendens was validly carried over from the mother title (TCT No. 30459) and any issues regarding its inscription should be determined within the parent litigation.
Certification from the Register of Deeds indicated that the absence of a transaction record did not prove that no valid record existed but may be attributed to loss or destruction of records.

On April 14, 2005, the RTC of Las PiAas City, Branch 253, dismissed the petition for cancellation for lack of jurisdiction.
The trial court noted that the petition was not properly filed as an independent original action but needed to be an incident to the main action before the proper court (in this case, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62).

Allegations of Forgery: The trial court also refrained from ruling on the allegation of forgery, indicating that such an assertion required positive proof and proper identification of the alleged forger.
Motion for Reconsideration: The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on June 24, 2005.

Pure Question of Law: On review, petitioner raised the legal question of whether the RTC of Las PiAas City, Branch 253 possessed the inherent jurisdiction to cancel the notice of lis pendens as an independent action.
Contentions:

Petitioner argued that the action for cancellation of lis pendens is not always ancillary to the main action, particularly when the petitioner is not a party to the referenced litigation.
It contested that the non-chronological inscriptions and alleged forgery provided sufficient ground for cancellation.
The petitioner maintained that the clean duplicate title confirmed its status as an innocent purchaser for value and that its Torrens title was, therefore, indefeasible.

Main Action: The notice of lis pendens was originally recorded in connection with a civil case (Civil Case No. 2137) involving Bruneo F. Casim versus other parties, which was later decided by the RTC of Makati City and reached finality on appeal.
Jurisdictional Emphasis: The intervenor highlighted that cancellation of the lis pendens notice should be handled by the court with jurisdiction over that main action, not by the RTC of Las PiAas City.

Petitioner’s Alternate Remedy: While asserting that judicial cancellation should be possible, the petitioner overlooked that Section 77 of PD No. 1529 provides for cancellation of a lis pendens through an administrative process via the Register of Deeds, upon submission of a certificate from the proper clerk of court after final judgment.
Functional Purpose: The notice of lis pendens is designed to inform the public that the property is under litigation and that interests acquired in the property are subject to the outcome of that litigation.

Whether the RTC of Las PiAas City, Branch 253, had the inherent jurisdiction to entertain an original action for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens incident to a separate main litigation.
Whether the cancellation of the annote notice, which is an ancillary matter to the principal lawsuit, should be addressed by the court having jurisdiction over the main action.

Whether the alleged non-chronological inscription and inconsistencies in the notarial signature on the notice of lis pendens suffice to establish forgery.
Whether the absence of a supporting transaction record on file substantively supports the claim of forgery.

Whether the petitioner’s assertion that its clean duplicate title and status as an innocent purchaser for value render its title indefeasible despite the annotations on the original copy.