Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8320)
Procedural Background
The initial series of cases involved attempts by private respondent Ciocon to regain possession of the property through Civil Case Nos. 7687 and 7723, claiming he had previously paid for its reconveyance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the heirs of Fernandez on May 30, 1988, but this decision was later set aside on October 15, 1991, following a motion from Ciocon for the re-evaluation of the case based on incomplete records.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition filed by the heirs of Fernandez that sought to annul the RTC’s order on July 23, 1992, which cancelled the notice of lis pendens concerning Civil Cases Nos. 7687 and 7723, effectively ruling that the remedy of appeal was adequate and that the trial court had authority over the matter.
Legal Issues Raised
Petitioners contested the validity of the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, arguing it was a nullity due to improper procedures and lack of due process, asserting that the RTC acted without jurisdiction at the time of issuing the order. They argued that the cancellation was based on an ex parte motion that did not cover the specific entry in question.
Nature and Purpose of Lis Pendens
A notice of lis pendens serves to inform potential purchasers that a property is subject to litigation, thereby placing it under the protective jurisdiction of the court until the litigation concludes. The cancellation of such a notice is only justified if it is proven to be intended to harass the opposing party or is unnecessary for protecting the rights of the party who caused it to be annotated.
Analysis of Jurisdiction
The trial court lost jurisdiction over the matter after the petitions for appeal were perfected regarding the initial decision and thus could not lawfully alter any previous judgments or grant execution. The attempt to cancel the notice was unwarranted given that the appeal pendency divested the RTC of this power.
Conclusion on Jurisdiction and Due Process
The order to cancel the notice of lis pendens was declared void for three primary reasons: first, it was based on an ex parte motion which deprived petitioners of their right to be heard; second, t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-8320)
Case Overview
- The case revolves around a petition for review of a decision by the Court of Appeals that dismissed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus filed by the petitioners.
- The central issue pertains to the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens related to civil cases concerning Lot 435 of the Bacolod cadastre, originally titled to Prudencio Fernandez, the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest.
Background of the Case
- Prudencio Fernandez acquired Lot 435 and later attempted to eject private respondent Jesus Ciocon and others from the property.
- Ciocon instituted Civil Case No. 7687 for reconveyance of the land, claiming he had previously paid for it.
- Following Prudencio's death in 1966, his heirs became involved in the ongoing civil litigation, with multiple intervenors joining as claimants.
Judicial Proceedings
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaints in 1988, ordering Ciocon and intervenors to return possession of Lot 435 to the Fernandez heirs.
- Appeals were filed against this decision and subsequent developments led to a re-evaluation of the case by the same RTC, which culminated in a second decision that reversed the initial ruling.
Key Legal Issues
- Petitioners sought to annul the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens which they argued was done withou