G.R. No. 168655 ; July 2, 2010
J. CASIM CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES, INC., Petitioner, vs. REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS, Respondent. INTESTATE ESTATE OF BRUNEO F. CASIM, (Purported) Intervenor.

FACTS

Petitioner J. Casim Construction Supplies, Inc. is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 49936. It discovered that the original copy of its title on file with the Register of Deeds contained several annotations, including a Notice of Lis Pendens dated September 18, 1981, referencing a civil case (Civil Case No. LP-9438-P) filed by Bruneo F. Casim. Petitioner filed a petition directly with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas, Branch 253, seeking the cancellation of this notice and other entries. It argued the annotation was a forgery, noting alleged signature inconsistencies and non-chronological entry. Petitioner also claimed it was an innocent purchaser for value, as its owner’s duplicate title was clean and it was never a party to the cited case.
The Intestate Estate of Bruneo F. Casim intervened, opposing the petition. It argued the RTC of Las Piñas lacked jurisdiction, asserting that a petition for cancellation of a notice of lis pendens must be filed in the court where the main action referenced in the notice is pending. It further contended that the civil case in question had already attained finality, with the Supreme Court having issued an entry of judgment and the RTC of Makati having ordered execution.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 253, had jurisdiction to entertain the original petition for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. 49936.

RULING

No, the RTC of Las Piñas correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the established rule that a notice of lis pendens is a mere incident in a pending suit. Consequently, any motion or action for its cancellation must be filed in the very court and in the same case where the property claim is actively being litigated. The rationale is that the court hearing the principal action is in the best position to determine the necessity and continued propriety of the notice based on the merits of its own proceedings. The Court rejected petitioner’s attempt to file an independent, original action for cancellation in a different court. The proper remedy was to seek relief from the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62, which was the court that eventually heard and decided the main case referred to in the annotation (Civil Case No. LP-9438-P, re-docketed after judicial reorganization). The allegations of forgery and petitioner’s status as an innocent purchaser did not alter this procedural requirement; such defenses are more appropriately raised and resolved within the context of the main action where the notice originated.