This case clarifies the limits of a court’s authority to cancel a notice of *lis pendens*, emphasizing that such power lies primarily with the court where the main action is pending. The Supreme Court ruled that a judge acted improperly by ordering the cancellation of a *lis pendens* notice related to a case pending in another court and already under appeal. This decision underscores the importance of respecting jurisdictional boundaries and ensuring that parties receive due notice in legal proceedings.

The Hasty Cancellation: A Breach of Judicial Boundaries?

This case revolves around a dispute over a property in Makati City, highlighting the legal intricacies of mortgage foreclosures, auction sales, and the role of *lis pendens* in protecting potential property rights. Martin Brizuela filed a complaint against Citibank, which eventually led to the foreclosure of his property. Integrated Credit and Corporate Services Co. (ICCS) acquired the property, prompting Brizuela to file another case seeking to annul the auction sale. To protect his interests, Brizuela annotated a notice of *lis pendens* on the property’s title, signaling the ongoing legal dispute to any potential buyers. ICCS then sought the cancellation of this notice from a different branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which the judge granted with unusual speed. This action raised questions about judicial overreach and the proper handling of *lis pendens* notices.

The heart of the Supreme Court’s decision rests on the principle that the power to cancel a notice of *lis pendens* is generally incidental to the court handling the main action. Here, the *lis pendens* was filed in connection with a case pending in Branch 66 of the Makati RTC, which was already under appeal in the Court of Appeals. Therefore, it was improper for Judge Mendiola of Branch 63 to order its cancellation. The Court emphasized that such action constituted an interference with the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction. This is because the appellate court had already taken cognizance of the case when the motion was filed with Judge Mendiola.

Moreover, the Supreme Court found fault with the procedural irregularities surrounding the cancellation. The motion for cancellation was filed and scheduled for hearing with insufficient notice to Brizuela, violating the three-day notice requirement stipulated in the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court stressed the importance of due process, stating that Brizuela had a right to contest the motion, which was effectively denied by the expedited hearing. The Court cited the importance of following rules to ensure fairness.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the actions of the Branch Clerk of Court, Josefina E. Costin, who issued a certification stating that the order granting the writ of possession had become final and executory, despite the pending appeal. The Court found this certification to be misleading, even if not malicious, and reprimanded Costin for negligence and lack of due care. The Court made it clear that even if not malicious, those working for the judiciary should still be careful with the papers that they issue.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle of judicial restraint and the importance of following proper procedure. The court held that Judge Mendiola exceeded his authority by interfering with a case pending in another court and violating due process requirements. This decision serves as a reminder to judges to respect jurisdictional boundaries and ensure that all parties receive adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. In addition, the case highlights the importance of accuracy and diligence on the part of court personnel in issuing certifications.

To further clarify the significance of a *lis pendens*, it is a notice filed in the registry of property, informing all persons that a particular property is involved in a lawsuit, and that anyone who acquires an interest in the property during the pendency of the action will be bound by the judgment. This is in line with the provision of the Rules of Civil Procedure which states:

SECTION 14. *Notice of Lis Pendens*. – In an action affecting the title or the right of possession of real property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may record in the office of the registry of deeds of the province or city in which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the action. Said notice shall contain the names of the parties and the object of the action or defense, and a description of the property affected thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be deemed to have constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against the parties designated by their real names.

In effect, the *lis pendens* serves as a warning to potential buyers or lenders, putting them on notice that the property is subject to litigation. This mechanism helps prevent the transfer of property rights during a legal dispute and protects the interests of the parties involved. Therefore, the cancellation of such a notice can have significant consequences, potentially undermining the protection it provides to the parties in litigation. Thus, following proper procedure is important in cancelling a *lis pendens*.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Mendiola had the authority to order the cancellation of a notice of *lis pendens* for a case pending in another court and already under appeal.
What is a notice of *lis pendens*?	A notice of *lis pendens* is a warning filed in the registry of property that a lawsuit is pending involving the property, affecting its title or right of possession. It serves to notify potential buyers or lenders that the property is subject to litigation.
Why was the judge’s order considered improper?	The judge’s order was improper because the power to cancel a notice of *lis pendens* generally lies with the court handling the main action, or in this case, the appellate court since the case was under appeal. The judge’s action interfered with the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
What procedural irregularity did the Supreme Court point out?	The Supreme Court noted that the motion for cancellation was filed and scheduled for hearing with insufficient notice to Brizuela, violating the three-day notice requirement in the Rules of Civil Procedure.
What was the consequence for Judge Mendiola?	Judge Mendiola was fined P5,000.00, which was to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
What was the issue with the Branch Clerk of Court’s certification?	The Branch Clerk of Court issued a certification stating that the order granting the writ of possession had become final and executory, despite the pending appeal, which the Court found misleading.
What was the consequence for the Branch Clerk of Court?	The Branch Clerk of Court was reprimanded for negligence and lack of due care in issuing the certification.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	The ruling reinforces the importance of respecting jurisdictional boundaries and following proper procedure in legal proceedings, particularly regarding notices of *lis pendens*. It reminds judges to exercise restraint and ensure that all parties receive due process.
Can a notice of *lis pendens* be cancelled?	Yes, a notice of *lis pendens* can be cancelled, but the authority to do so generally lies with the court handling the main action, and proper procedure must be followed, including providing adequate notice to all parties involved.

This case serves as a valuable reminder of the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and respecting the jurisdictional boundaries of different courts. By clarifying the limits of judicial authority in the context of *lis pendens*, the Supreme Court has provided clear guidance for judges and court personnel, promoting fairness and efficiency in the administration of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Martin V. Brizuela vs Judge Ruben A. Mendiola and Clerk of Court Josefina E. Costin, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1560, July 05, 2000