Casim V RD

Casim v. RD of Las Piñas encumbrances made in TCT No.
49936 from the mother title

TCT No. 30459, the latter would show that it also had the
FACTS: same inscriptions as those found in TCT No. 49936 only that
they were entered in the original copy on file with the
Petitioner, represented herein by Rogelio C. Casim, is a duly
Register of Deeds.
organized domestic corporation in whose name TCT No.
49936, covering a 10,715-square meter land was registered. Also, as per certification issued by the Register of Deeds,
Sometime in 1982, petitioner Casim acquired the covered petitioner's claim of lack of transaction record could not
property by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale and as a result stand, because the said certification stated merely that the
the mother title, TCT No. 30459 was cancelled and TCT No. corresponding transaction record could no longer be
49936 was issued. retrieved and might, therefore, be considered as either lost
or destroyed.
On March 22, 2004, petitioner filed with the RTC of Las Piñas
City, Branch 253 an original petition for the cancellation of RTC:
the notice of lis pendens, as well as of all the other entries of
involuntary encumbrances annotated on the original copy of On April 14, 2005, the trial court, ruling that it did not have
TCT No. 49936. Petitioner claimed that its owner's duplicate jurisdiction over the action, resolved to dismiss the petition
copy of the TCT was clean at the time of its delivery and that and declared that the action must have been filed before the
it was surprised to learn later on that the original copy of its same court and in the same action in relation to which the
TCT , on file with the Register of Deeds, contained several annotation of the notice of lis pendens had been sought.
entries which all signified that the covered property had been Anent the allegation that the entries in the TCT were forged,
subjected to various claims. the trial court pointed out that not only did petitioner resort to
the wrong forum to determine the existence of forgery, but
To justify the cancellation, petitioner alleged that: also that forgery could not be presumed merely from the
alleged nonchronological entries in the TCT but instead must
1. The notice of lis pendens, in particular, was a forgery
be positively proved.
judging from the inconsistencies in the inscriber's signature
as well as from the fact that the notice was entered non- ISSUE:
chronologically, that is, the date thereof is much earlier than
that of the preceding entry. In this regard, it noted the lack of Whether the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 253 has
any transaction record on file with the Register of Deeds that jurisdiction in an original action to cancel the notice of lis
would support the notice of lis pendens annotation. pendens annotated on the subject title of petitioner. - NO
2. Petitioner also stated that while Section 59 of Presidential RULING:

Decree (P .D.) No. 1529 requires the carry-over of subsisting
encumbrances in the new issuances of TCTs, petitioner's No. RTC of Las Pinas has NO jurisdiction in an original action
duplicate copy of the title did not contain any such carry-over, to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated on the subject
which means that it was an innocent purchaser for value, title of petitioner.
especially since it was never a party to the civil case referred
Lis Pendens which literally means pending suit — refers to
to in the notice of lis pendens.
the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over
3. Lastly, it alludes to the indefeasibility of its title despite the the property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of
fact that the mother title, TCT No. 30459, might have suffered the action, and until final judgment. Founded upon public
from certain defects and constraints. policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the
properties in litigation within the power of the court until the
The Intestate Estate of Bruneo F. Casim, representing litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the
Bruneo F. Casim, intervened in the instant case and filed a judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. Its notice is an
Comment/Opposition in which it maintained that the RTC of announcement to the whole world that a particular property
Las Piñas did not have jurisdiction over the present action, is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires
because the matter of canceling a notice of lis pendens lies an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that
within the jurisdiction of the court before which the main he gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.
action referred to in the notice is pending. In this regard, it A notice of lis pendens, once duly registered, may be
emphasized that the case referred to in the said notice had cancelled by the trial court before which the action involving
already attained finality as the Supreme Court had issued an the property is pending (decision has not attained finality
entry of judgment therein and that the RTC of Makati City yet).This power is said to be inherent in the trial court and is
had ordered execution in that case. exercised only under express provisions of law.
In response to petitioner’s allegation, and as opposed to Accordingly, Section 14, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
petitioner's claim that there was no carryover of Procedure authorizes the trial court to cancel a notice of lis
pendens where it is properly shown that the purpose of its latter court that has jurisdiction over the main case referred
annotation is for molesting the adverse party, or that it is not to in the notice and it is that same court which exercises
necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to power and control over the real property subject of the notice.
be annotated. Be that as it may, the power to cancel a notice
of lis pendens is exercised only under exceptional But even so, the petition could no longer be expected to
circumstances, such as: where such circumstances are pursue before the proper forum inasmuch as the decision
imputable to the party who caused the annotation; where the rendered in the annulment case has already attained finality
litigation was unduly prolonged to the prejudice of the other before both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court on
party because of several continuances procured by the appellate level,unless of course there exists substantial
petitioner; where the case which is the basis for the lis and genuine claims against the parties relative to the main
pendens notation was dismissed for non prosequitur on the case subject of the notice of lis pendens. There is none in
part of the plaintiff; or where judgment was rendered against this case.It is thus well to note that the precautionary notice
the party who caused such annotation. In such instances, that has been registered relative to the annulment case then
said notice is deemed ipso facto cancelled. pending before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62 has
served its purpose. With the finality of the decision therein on
Petitioner’s contention in theorizing that the RTC of Las appeal, the notice has already been rendered functus officio.
Piñas City, Branch 253 has the inherent power to cancel the The rights of the parties, as well as of their successors-
notice of lis pendens that was incidentally registered in ininterest, petitioner included, in relation to the subject
relation to Civil Case No. 2137, a case which had been property, are hence to be decided according the said final
decided by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62 and affirmed decision.
by the Supreme Court on appeal, petitioner advocates that
the cancellation of such a notice is not always ancillary to a But petitioner is not altogether precluded from pursuing a
main action. This argument fails. From the available records, specific remedy, only that the suitable course of action legally
it appears that the subject notice of lis pendens had been available is not judicial but rather administrative.
recorded at the instance of Bruneo F. Casim (Bruneo) in
Section 77 of P .D. No. 1529 provides the appropriate
relation to Civil Case No. 2137— one for annulment of sale
measure to have a notice of lis pendens cancelled out from
and recovery of real property — which he led before the RTC
the title, that is by presenting to the Register of Deeds, after
of Makati City, Branch 62 against the spouses Jesus and
finality of the judgment rendered in the main action, a
Margarita Casim, predecessors-in-interest and stockholders
certificate executed by the clerk of court before which the
of petitioner corporation.
main action was pending to the effect that the case has
That case involved the property subject of the present case, already been finally decided by the court, stating the manner
then covered by TCT No. 30459. At the close of the trial on of the disposal.
the merits therein, the RTC of Makati rendered a decision
All told, the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 253 has
adverse to Bruneo and dismissed the complaint for lack of
committed no reversible error in issuing the assailed
merit. Aggrieved, Bruneo lodged an appeal with the Court of
Resolution and Order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the
Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 54204, which
petition for cancellation of notice of lis pendens led by
reversed and set aside the trial court's decision. Expectedly,
petitioner, and in denying reconsideration.
the spouses Jesus and Margarita Casim elevated the case
to the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 151957, but
their appeal was dismissed for being filed out of time. A
necessary incident of registering a notice of lis pendens is
that the property covered thereby is effectively placed, until
the litigation attains finality, under the power and control of
the court having jurisdiction over the case to which the notice
relates. In this sense, parties dealing with the given property
are charged with the knowledge of the existence of the action
and are deemed to take the property subject to the outcome
of the litigation. It is also in this sense that the power
possessed by a trial court to cancel the notice of lis pendens
is said to be inherent as the same is merely ancillary to the
main action.
Clearly, the action for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens

in this case must have been filed not before the court a quo
via an original action but rather, before the RTC of Makati
City, Branch 62 as an incident of the annulment case in
relation to which its registration was sought. Thus, it is the

Casim V RD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casim V RD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casim V RD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casim v. RD of Las Piñas encumbrances made in TCT No.

49936 from the mother title

2. Petitioner also stated that while Section 59 of Presidential RULING:

Clearly, the action for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.