GR 115402; (July, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115402 July 15, 1998
LEONCIO LEE TEK SHENG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANTONIO J. FINEZA, and LEE TEKSHENG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng filed a complaint for partition of the conjugal properties of his parents after his mother’s death. In his answer with counterclaim, private respondent Lee Teksheng (petitioner’s father) alleged that four parcels of land registered solely in petitioner’s name under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8278 were actually conjugal properties, registered in petitioner’s name only as a trustee because he was then the only Filipino citizen in the family. Private respondent prayed for dismissal of the partition case and reconveyance of the lots to the conjugal regime, and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 8278. Petitioner moved for cancellation of the annotation, which was denied by the trial court. Petitioner assailed the denial via petition for certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. Petitioner then resorted to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens, specifically on the grounds that: (a) it was improper to thresh out the issue of ownership of the disputed lots in a partition case, and (b) it would amount to a collateral attack on petitioner’s title.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held:
1. The annotation of a notice of lis pendens does not amount to a collateral attack on a certificate of title. The rule against collateral attack under Section 48 of P.D. 1529 pertains to the certificate of title (the document), not to title (ownership) itself. A certificate of title is only the best proof of ownership, not conclusive evidence thereof. Private respondent was disputing petitioner’s claim of sole ownership, not assailing the certificate of title itself.
2. A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled only on two grounds: (a) if the annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title of the adverse party, or (b) when the annotation is not necessary to protect the title of the party who caused it to be recorded. Neither ground was convincingly shown in this case. The annotation was proper to warn the public that the property was in litigation.
3. Ownership can be resolved in a partition case. Until ownership is definitely resolved, partition would be premature. The issue of ownership was put in issue by the parties at pre-trial and in the answer with counterclaim praying for reconveyance. In a partition case, the court is required to inquire into the “nature and extent of title” of the claimants.