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

FACTS

Petitioners Maria Gervacio Blas, et al., 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. They sought to recover one-half of the properties inventoried in the testate proceeding. Pursuant to the Rules of Court, petitioners 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 in Pampanga. After trial, the complaint was dismissed, and petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was argued and 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 for P138,438.00 and P142,064.40, respectively, to pay estate and inheritance taxes due. Petitioners opposed the motion, arguing that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case upon perfection of the appeal, except for orders protecting and preserving rights not involved in the appeal. They contended that 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 because their claim, if sustained, would reduce the taxable estate by half. Over petitioners’ opposition, respondent Judge Cecilia Muñoz-Palma issued an order on July 14, 1955, directing cancellation of the lis pendens upon the filing of a P142,000.00 bond approved by the court. Petitioners filed the present petition to set aside that order.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to order the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens on the two fishponds after petitioners’ appeal to the Supreme Court had been perfected.

RULING

No. The trial court no longer had jurisdiction to cancel the notice of lis pendens after the appeal was perfected. Under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, upon perfection of an appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties that do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s order cancelling the lis pendens did not fall within this exception. The executrix’s claim that the sale was necessary to pay estate and inheritance taxes did not justify cancellation, as the pendency of petitioners’ appeal—claiming ownership over one-half of the estate—constituted a prejudicial question that would substantially affect the volume of the estate subject to taxation. If petitioners prevailed, the estate and inheritance taxes would be proportionately reduced, benefiting the estate. Thus, the immediate sale was not clearly in the estate’s best interest. Furthermore, the purpose of a lis pendens is to keep the subject matter within the court’s power until litigation ends and to charge third parties with notice, preventing them from acquiring interests that would preclude effect to the judgment. The reasons given by the trial court were insufficient to nullify this protection. The petition was granted, with costs against the respondent executrix.