G.R. No. 81541 - People vs. Regional Trial Court of Manila

On September 20, 1980, the private respondents sold several parcels of land in Dasmarinas, Cavite, including a parcel covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-110942, to Ricardo Silverio.
At the time of sale, the properties were registered in the names of the private respondents, and they expressly warranted in the deed of sale that the properties were “free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever.”

One of the parcels sold was the subject of a litigation (Civil Case No. TG-493) between the private respondents and Pedro Caragao (with co-owners), for reconveyance, cancellation of title, and damages.
Pedro Caragao, who was involved in the litigation, caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the original TCT (TCT No. T-110942) in the Registry of Deeds for Cavite without the knowledge of the private respondents.
The private respondents’ owner’s copy of the TCT did not bear any such annotation, creating a discrepancy between the document used in the transaction and the recorded status in the Registry of Deeds.

Based on the warranty clause in the deed of sale and in light of the annotated notice on the original TCT, Assistant Fiscal Napoleon V. Dilao of Manila filed an information for falsification of public document against the private respondents.
The information specifically charged that, by misstating that the property was “free from all liens and encumbrances” when it was actually under litigation (as evidenced by the annotated notice), the accused committed falsification of a public document.
The underlying contention was that the notice of lis pendens should be considered as the lien or encumbrance, thus making the warranty in the deed of sale misleading and illegal.

Before arraignment, the private respondents filed a “Motion to Quash” the information under Rule 117, contending that a notice of lis pendens is merely a cautionary annotation and not a lien or encumbrance.
The respondent trial court, in an order dated July 17, 1987, sustained the motion to quash and dismissed the charge on the ground that a notice of lis pendens does not constitute a lien or encumbrance under civil law.
Pedro Caragao filed an opposition to the motion only after the order, and later moved for reconsideration on August 12, 1987, arguing that the notice of lis pendens was merely evidence of a lien and that the litigation status itself should be considered an encumbrance.
The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on August 26, 1987.

The petitioner (Pedro Caragao) alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion and lacked jurisdiction by equating the annotated notice with the lien or encumbrance charged in the information.
He argued that a notice of lis pendens, being only an evidence of pending litigation, should not absolve the private respondents from the alleged falsification committed in the public document.
The petitioner further questioned the trial court’s substitution of the plain text of the information with his own opinion and allegedly inapplicable legal doctrines.

Whether a notice of lis pendens, as annotated on the original copy of the TCT, constitutes a lien or encumbrance within the contemplation of criminal law, particularly in relation to the offense of falsification of public document.
Whether the failure to reflect the notice of lis pendens on the owner’s copy of the TCT, and the subsequent warranty made in the deed of sale, amounts to falsification of a public document.
Whether the trial court erred in granting the Motion to Quash and dismissing the criminal information on the basis that a notice of lis pendens is only a cautionary device rather than constituting an actual lien or encumbrance.
Whether the status of a property being under litigation (litigated property) itself can be equated with an existing legal lien or encumbrance enforceable against the property.