Lis Pendens Cancellation: What Property Owners in the Philippines Need to Know

A Notice of Lis Pendens is a crucial tool in Philippine law for safeguarding property rights during litigation. It serves as a public warning that a property’s title is under dispute, preventing further transactions that could complicate legal proceedings. However, this case underscores that a Lis Pendens is not an impenetrable shield and can be cancelled under specific circumstances, even before a final court decision. Understanding these grounds for cancellation is vital for property owners and litigants alike to navigate property disputes effectively.

G.R. No. 114732, August 01, 2000

INTRODUCTION

Imagine discovering that the property you are about to purchase is entangled in a legal battle you knew nothing about. This is the very scenario a Notice of Lis Pendens is designed to prevent. In the Philippines, this legal mechanism acts as a public alert, recorded in the Registry of Deeds, signaling to the world that a property’s ownership or rights are currently being contested in court. The case of *Yared v. Ilarde* delves into the intricacies of this notice, specifically addressing when and how a court can order its cancellation, even while the underlying property dispute remains unresolved. At the heart of this case lies the question: Can a court prematurely lift the protection of a Lis Pendens, and what are the implications for property litigants?

LEGAL CONTEXT: LIS PENDENS AND ITS CANCELLATION

The concept of *lis pendens*, Latin for “pending suit,” is deeply rooted in Philippine property law. It’s codified under Section 14, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 76 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree). These laws allow parties in certain real property disputes to register a notice alerting potential buyers or encumbrancers about the ongoing litigation. This notice creates a ‘constructive notice’ – meaning the law presumes everyone is aware of the pending case, regardless of actual knowledge.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the purpose of *lis pendens*: to keep the subject property within the court’s power until the litigation concludes and to prevent judgments from being undermined by property transfers during the case. It’s a warning sign, urging caution to anyone considering dealing with the property.

Crucially, the law also provides for the cancellation of a *lis pendens*. Section 77 of PD 1529 explicitly states the grounds for cancellation before final judgment:

“Before final judgment, a notice of *lis pendens* may be cancelled upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be registered.”

This provision highlights that while *lis pendens* is a powerful tool, it’s not absolute and can be challenged if misused or no longer necessary. The burden of proof for cancellation lies with the party seeking it.

CASE BREAKDOWN: YARED VS. ILARDE

The *Yared v. Ilarde* case unfolded when Estrella Tiongco Yared filed a lawsuit against Jose B. Tiongco, seeking to annul titles and reclaim property. Yared claimed Tiongco fraudulently adjudicated properties solely to himself, excluding other heirs, including Yared herself. To safeguard her claim, Yared promptly annotated a Notice of Lis Pendens on the property titles.

The legal battle took a procedural rollercoaster ride:

1. Initial Filing and Lis Pendens: Yared filed her amended complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and registered the Lis Pendens.
2. Tiongco’s Cancellation Attempts: Tiongco repeatedly tried to have the Lis Pendens cancelled, but the RTC initially denied his motions.
3. Trial Court Dismissal: The RTC eventually dismissed Yared’s complaint, finding her claim had prescribed (the legal time limit to file the case had expired).
4. Appeal and Continued Cancellation Attempts: Yared appealed. Tiongco renewed his motion to cancel the Lis Pendens. Initially denied again, Tiongco persisted.
5. Reversal and Cancellation: In a surprising turn, the RTC judge, Hon. Ricardo Ilarde, granted Tiongco’s ‘Third Motion for Reconsideration’ and ordered the Lis Pendens cancelled. The judge cited prescription and other factors, even though the case was under appeal.
6. Another Reversal, Then Reinstatement of Cancellation: The judge briefly reversed himself, acknowledging loss of jurisdiction due to the appeal. However, after Tiongco’s further motion, Judge Ilarde reinstated the order cancelling the Lis Pendens, arguing the cancellation was a mere ‘incident’ not related to the appeal’s merits.
7. Certiorari to the Supreme Court: Yared, feeling unjustly treated, directly petitioned the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari, arguing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC judge.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed Yared’s petition, not on the merits of the Lis Pendens cancellation itself, but on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized the principle of judicial hierarchy, stating Yared should have first sought recourse from the Court of Appeals before elevating the matter directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court quoted its earlier ruling in *Vergara v. Suelto*, reiterating that direct resort to the Supreme Court is reserved for cases of “absolute necessity” or “serious and important reasons.” The Court stressed that lower courts, like the Court of Appeals, are fully capable of handling petitions for certiorari and that bypassing them inappropriately burdens the Supreme Court.

Despite dismissing the petition on procedural grounds, the Supreme Court did touch upon the nature of Lis Pendens cancellation, quoting *Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals*:

“The cancellation of such a precautionary notice is therefore also a mere incident in the action, and may be ordered by the Court having jurisdiction of it at any given time. And its continuance or removal—like the continuance or removal or removal of a preliminary attachment of injunction is not contingent on the existence of a final judgment in the action, and ordinarily has no effect on the merits thereof.”

Furthermore, the Court took issue with the unprofessional and offensive language used by respondent Tiongco in his pleadings against opposing counsel, Atty. Deguma, reminding lawyers to maintain courtesy and respect in legal proceedings.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

While *Yared v. Ilarde* didn’t directly rule on the propriety of the Lis Pendens cancellation in that specific instance, it provides crucial insights and reinforces existing principles:

• Judicial Hierarchy Matters: Litigants must respect the hierarchy of Philippine courts. Directly filing a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court to challenge RTC orders is generally improper and will likely be dismissed. The Court of Appeals is the proper forum for initial review of RTC actions.
• Lis Pendens is Not Indefeasible: A Notice of Lis Pendens, while important, can be cancelled even before a final judgment. Grounds for cancellation include improper purpose (molestation) or lack of necessity to protect the claimant’s rights.
• Cancellation is an Interlocutory Incident: The Supreme Court reiterated that Lis Pendens cancellation is considered an ‘incident’ of the main action, separate from the merits of the case itself. This implies that a trial court might have some leeway to order cancellation even while the main case is appealed, though this power should be exercised judiciously.
• Prescription is a Significant Factor: The RTC judge in *Yared* heavily weighed the fact that the trial court had already ruled Yared’s claim was barred by prescription. While the propriety of cancellation based solely on a trial court’s decision under appeal is debatable, it highlights that the perceived strength (or weakness) of the underlying claim can influence decisions on Lis Pendens cancellation.

Key Lessons for Property Owners and Litigants:

• Promptly Annotate Lis Pendens: If you file a case affecting property title or possession, immediately register a Notice of Lis Pendens to protect your interests.
• Understand Cancellation Grounds: Be aware that a Lis Pendens can be challenged and cancelled. Ensure your Lis Pendens is genuinely necessary and not for harassment.
• File Motions in the Correct Court: If challenging a court order (like Lis Pendens cancellation), follow the judicial hierarchy. Start with the Court of Appeals for RTC orders before going to the Supreme Court in exceptional cases.
• Maintain Professionalism: Lawyers must always conduct themselves professionally and avoid offensive language, as highlighted by the Court’s reprimand in this case.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What exactly is a Notice of Lis Pendens?

A: It’s a legal notice registered in the Registry of Deeds to inform the public that a property is involved in a lawsuit. It warns potential buyers or lenders that the property’s title is under dispute.

Q: When is it appropriate to file a Notice of Lis Pendens?

A: In actions to recover property possession, quiet title, remove clouds on title, partition property, or any case directly affecting land title or use.

Q: Can a Notice of Lis Pendens be cancelled?

A: Yes, it can be cancelled by court order if it’s shown to be for harassment or unnecessary to protect the claimant’s rights, even before the case is finally decided.

Q: What happens if a Lis Pendens is cancelled?

A: Cancellation removes the public warning. Subsequent buyers or lenders may argue they are ‘innocent purchasers’ without notice of the ongoing dispute, potentially complicating the original claimant’s case.

Q: If my Lis Pendens is improperly cancelled by the RTC, where should I file my appeal?

A: You should file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court, to respect the judicial hierarchy.

Q: Does cancellation of Lis Pendens mean I lose my property case?

A: Not necessarily. Cancellation is an interlocutory matter. The underlying property case will still proceed. However, it weakens your protection against property transfers during litigation.

Q: What are the grounds for asking for cancellation of Lis Pendens?

A: Primarily, that the Lis Pendens is meant to harass the property owner or that it’s not actually needed to protect the claimant’s rights. A weak or time-barred claim might also be considered by the court.

ASG Law specializes in Property Litigation and Civil Procedure in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.