G.R. No. 115813; October 16, 2000
Eduardo Fernandez, et al., as heirs of Prudencio Fernandez, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Jesus Ciocon, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners are the heirs of Prudencio Fernandez, the registered owner of Lot 435. Respondent Jesus Ciocon filed a complaint for reconveyance, claiming he had fully paid Fernandez. The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed Ciocon’s complaint in 1988. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals noted incomplete records and ordered the re-taking of testimonies. Instead, the trial judge, treating the case as remanded, granted Ciocon’s motion to decide anew, reversed his own 1988 decision in 1991, and ordered the lot reconveyed to Ciocon. The judge also granted Ciocon’s motion for execution pending appeal, leading to the cancellation of the Fernandez title and issuance of a new one to Ciocon. Petitioners appealed the 1991 decision and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens (Entry No. 178073) on the new title. Subsequently, Ciocon sold the property to Eduardo Gargar. The trial court, upon Ciocon’s motion, ordered the cancellation of several lis pendens annotations, including Entry No. 178073, which was not even listed in the motion. The Court of Appeals upheld this cancellation.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens (Entry No. 178073).

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. A notice of lis pendens is a proper remedy in an action affecting title to real property, serving as a warning to prospective purchasers. Its cancellation is governed by Section 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which permits it only upon a showing that the annotation is for molesting the adverse party or is unnecessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it. The trial court’s order of cancellation was fatally defective. First, it cancelled Entry No. 178073 even though this specific entry was not included in Ciocon’s motion, violating petitioners’ right to due process as they were not given an opportunity to oppose its cancellation. Second, the order was issued without any factual finding or legal basis that the annotation was for molesting Ciocon or was unnecessary to protect the petitioners’ rights. The pendency of the petitioners’ appeal from the 1991 decision, which precisely sought to nullify the transfer of title, made the notice of lis pendens essential to preserve their rights over the property. Consequently, the Supreme Court annulled the orders cancelling the lis pendens and directed its re-annotation on the title.