G.R. No. L-15689. April 29, 1960.
MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4395 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, filed against Rosalina Santos as executrix of the estate of Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, to recover one-half of the properties inventoried in the testate proceeding. They caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on all certificates of title covering the estate, including Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 8401 and 133944 (referred to in the text as 13944) for two fishponds. After trial, the complaint was dismissed, and petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was submitted for decision on May 8, 1959. While the appeal was pending, the executrix filed a motion in the trial court to cancel the notice of lis pendens on the two fishponds, alleging she had sold them to pay estate and inheritance taxes due from the estate. Petitioners opposed, arguing that under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the trial court lost jurisdiction upon perfection of the appeal, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of rights not involved in the appeal. They contended cancellation would destroy their rights, remove the lands from the court’s jurisdiction, and render any favorable appellate judgment ineffective, and that tax payment was premature as their claim, if upheld, would reduce the taxable estate. The respondent judge granted the motion on July 14, 1955, ordering cancellation upon filing a bond, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction, after perfection of petitioners’ appeal, to order the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens on the ground of protecting and preserving the rights of the parties under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

No. The trial court’s order cancelling the notice of lis pendens is set aside. The Supreme Court held that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to issue the order. Under Section 9, Rule 41, once an appeal is perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case except for orders to protect and preserve rights not involved in the appealed matter. Here, the cancellation of the lis pendens directly involved the subject matter of the appeal—petitioners’ claim of ownership over one-half of the estate properties, including the fishponds. The executrix’s reason for the sale (to pay estate taxes) did not justify cancellation because the pending appeal constituted a prejudicial question: if petitioners succeed, the estate’s assets and corresponding taxes would be reduced, benefiting the estate. Thus, the immediate sale was not clearly in the estate’s best interest. The purpose of a lis pendens is to keep the property within the court’s control pending litigation and to charge third parties with notice, ensuring the judgment can be given effect. The reasons given by the trial court were insufficient to nullify this protection. The petition is granted.