G.R. No. L-28526. July 7, 1986.
Remigio V. Tan, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Gregorio T. Lantin, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, compulsory heirs of the late Hilaria Isabelo Vda. de Tankeh, filed an action for the annulment of a “Deed of Absolute Sale” covering three parcels of land. They alleged their mother executed the deed in favor of their brother, respondent Clemente Tankeh, and his wife without any price or consideration. Upon their mother’s death, petitioners caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the corresponding titles to protect their interests as heirs. The private respondents, the Tankeh spouses, obtained new titles in their names.
The respondent Judge, presiding over the Court of First Instance of Manila, issued an order dated December 21, 1967, cancelling the notice of lis pendens upon the private respondents’ filing of a bond in the amount of P100,000.00. Petitioners filed this certiorari petition, arguing the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. They contended the notice was essential to protect their rights against any alienation of the properties. The Supreme Court initially enjoined enforcement of the cancellation order.

ISSUE

Did the respondent Judge commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens upon the mere filing of a bond by the registered owners?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the assailed order. The doctrine of lis pendens is a foundational principle of public policy designed to maintain the court’s jurisdiction over properties in litigation and to prevent the frustration of a future judgment by their alienation. Allowing a bond to substitute for the notice would defeat this very purpose. The Rules of Court, specifically Section 24 of Rule 14, permit cancellation only on two specific grounds: (1) a showing that the notice was filed to molest the adverse party, or (2) a showing that the notice is not necessary to protect the interest of the party who caused its annotation.
In this case, neither ground was established. The petitioners’ claim was not shown to be for molestation. Furthermore, the annotation remained necessary to protect the petitioners’ interest. The Court noted the respondents themselves had manifested an intent to encumber the properties for a business loan, demonstrating a real risk of alienation. The petitioners also sought to preserve the properties for sentimental reasons should they be adjudged the lawful owners. Therefore, the bond could not serve as a valid substitute for the notice of lis pendens. The order cancelling it was issued without legal basis and constituted grave abuse of discretion. The preliminary injunction was made permanent.