G.R. No. L-12053; May 30, 1958
ROBERTA DIAZ Y CRUZ, petitioner, vs. HON. JESUS Y. PEREZ, presiding Judge, 7th Branch, Court of First Instance, Pasay City, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Roberta Diaz y Cruz, an 83-year-old woman with substantial properties, was the subject of a guardianship petition filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal by some of her children and grandchildren, seeking to declare her incompetent and appoint a guardian (Special Proceeding No. 1483-P). While this proceeding was pending before respondent Judge Jesus Y. Perez, a notice of lis pendens was annotated on her Transfer Certificate of Title No. 32872. Roberta Diaz filed a petition in the same proceedings to cancel the lis pendens, which the respondent judge denied. Her motion for reconsideration was also denied. She then filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond. However, the respondent judge disapproved the record on appeal, ruling that the appealed orders were interlocutory and therefore not appealable. Consequently, Roberta Diaz filed the present petition for mandamus (to compel approval of the record on appeal) and certiorari (to annul the order refusing cancellation of the lis pendens).

ISSUE

1. Whether mandamus lies to compel the approval of the record on appeal from an interlocutory order denying the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens.
2. Whether certiorari lies to annul the order refusing to cancel the notice of lis pendens, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

1. On Mandamus: The petition for mandamus is denied. The Supreme Court held that mandamus does not lie because the order denying the cancellation of the lis pendens is interlocutory. Under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, interlocutory orders cannot be appealed separately; they may only be reviewed on appeal from the final judgment. The order was comparable to an order refusing to annul a preliminary attachment or an order denying or granting a preliminary injunction, which have been held to be interlocutory and non-appealable.
2. On Certiorari: The petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court found no lack of jurisdiction, as the petitioner, by asking the court to annul the lis pendens, implicitly admitted the court’s jurisdiction over the matter. Furthermore, there was no grave abuse of discretion in refusing to cancel the notice of lis pendens. The annotation was a proper cautionary measure to advise potential purchasers of the pending guardianship proceedings, which could adversely affect the title or right to dispose of the property. The Court rejected the argument that guardianship proceedings are not among the cases enumerated in Section 79 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) or Section 24 of Rule 7 for lis pendens, holding that such enumeration is not exclusive and that guardianship proceedings affect the “use,” “possession,” or even “title” to the real estate by potentially curtailing the owner’s right of disposition. The Rules applicable to civil actions are generally applicable to special proceedings like guardianship under Rule 73, Section 2. The Court also noted that after the hearing, the lower court had indeed declared Roberta Diaz incompetent and appointed a guardian, which vindicated the annotation and the refusal to cancel it. Therefore, no abuse of discretion was committed.
The petition was denied in its entirety, with costs against the petitioner.