G.R. No. 33770 , August 8, 1930
PACIFICO VICTORIANO, petitioner, vs. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA and PEDRO MA. SISON, Judges of First Instance, FRANCISCO J. GONZALEZ, JOSE MARTINEZ DE SAN AGUSTIN, and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pacifico Victoriano purchased a property from Narciso Javier, assuming two existing mortgages. One mortgage was held by respondent Francisco J. Gonzalez. Due to Victoriano’s failure to pay interest, a settlement was reached on May 3, 1928, whereby Victoriano executed a deed of sale of his remaining interest to Gonzalez for P2,500, and Gonzalez leased the property back to Victoriano. Gonzalez later filed an unlawful detainer suit for non-payment of rent. Victoriano then filed an action to annul the 1928 documents, alleging fraud and threats, and annotated a notice of lis pendens on the title. The cases were consolidated but repeatedly delayed at Victoriano’s instance. Gonzalez moved to require Victoriano to post a bond to answer for damages caused by the lis pendens, which prevented Gonzalez from disposing of the property. Judge Rovira ordered Victoriano to post a P5,000 bond within five days, or the lis pendens would be cancelled. Judge Sison denied Victoriano’s motion for reconsideration. Victoriano filed this petition for prohibition, arguing that under Section 79 of the Land Registration Act, courts have no power to cancel a lis pendens before final judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judges exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens unless the petitioner posted a bond.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for prohibition. While a notice of lis pendens generally cannot be cancelled while an action is pending, exceptions exist. Courts possess inherent power, in the absence of a statutory prohibition, to cancel a lis pendens in a proper case. Considering the peculiar circumstancesVictoriano filed his annulment suit over a year after the sale, his evidence thus far did not strongly support his fraud allegations, he was responsible for most trial delays, and he owed substantial back rentthe Court found that the lower court did not exceed its jurisdiction in requiring a bond and ordering cancellation upon failure to post it. The writ of prohibition only lies for lack or excess of jurisdiction, which was not present here.