G.R. No. 174290 /G.R. No. 176116 January 20, 2009
Case Parties: ST. MARY OF THE WOODS SCHOOL, INC. and MARCIAL P. SORIANO, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY and HILARIO P. SORIANO ( G.R. No. 174290 ); ST. MARY OF THE WOODS SCHOOL, INC. and MARCIAL P. SORIANO, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, and HILARIO P. SORIANO, Respondents (G.R. No. 176116).

FACTS

The consolidated cases are special civil actions for Certiorari and Prohibition. Petitioner St. Mary of the Woods School, Inc. (SMWSI) is the registered owner of three parcels of land in Makati City covered by TCTs No. 175029, 220977, and 220978. Petitioner Marcial P. Soriano is its President. Private respondent Hilario P. Soriano is Marcial’s sibling. Hilario filed a Complaint (Civil Case No. 03-954) with the RTC of Makati for Declaration of Nullity of a Deed of Assignment (dated May 10, 1988) executed by their father Tomas Q. Soriano in favor of Oro Development Corporation (ODC) involving the subject properties, and a subsequent Deed of Sale by ODC to SMWSI. Hilario alleged that Tomas’s signature on the Deed of Assignment was forged. A Notice of Lis Pendens was annotated on the relevant titles. The RTC dismissed the Complaint via an Order dated January 17, 2005, finding no cause of action, that the claim was extinguished, and that a condition precedent (earnest efforts toward a family compromise under Article 222 of the Civil Code) was not complied with. The RTC also noted that Hilario had executed a Joint Affidavit acknowledging the validity of the Deed of Assignment and had accepted a parcel of land as his share. Hilario appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 85561). Meanwhile, petitioners moved for the cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens. The RTC granted the motion in an Order dated June 20, 2005. The Court of Appeals, however, in a Resolution dated August 18, 2006, granted Hilario’s Motion to Reinstate/Re-annotate the Notice of Lis Pendens. The CA also denied petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and, in a separate Resolution, required the submission of documents to the NBI for signature analysis. Petitioners filed these consolidated petitions assailing the CA Resolutions for grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) ordering the reinstatement/re-annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens; (2) denying the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal; and (3) ordering the submission of documents to the NBI for examination.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the Notice of Lis Pendens, the Court ruled that its cancellation was improper because the RTC’s Order of dismissal was not yet final due to the pending appeal. A notice of lis pendens remains effective until the litigation is finally resolved. The RTC’s basis for cancellation—that the appeal was frivolous and dilatory—was an error, as the determination of the appeal’s merit is for the appellate court. On the denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, the Court found that the grounds raised (failure to state a cause of action, extinguishment of claim, non-compliance with Article 222) involved questions of fact or required examination of evidence, which are not proper in a motion to dismiss based solely on the pleadings. The CA correctly took cognizance of the appeal. On the order for NBI examination, the Court held that the CA acted within its discretion to ensure a just resolution of the appeal, as the authenticity of Tomas’s signature was a pivotal factual issue. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in any of the assailed CA actions.