Lim

v. Vera Cruz
GR. No. 143646.
Spouses Henry G. Lim and Rosario T. Lim, petitioners vs. Pepito M. Vera Cruz, Respondent

Supreme Court
April 4, 2001
PETITION for REVIEW ON CERTIORARI of a decision of the Court of Appeals

Facts
-Petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari assailing Decision dated January 25, 2000 and Resolution
dated June 9, 2000 of the CA which set aside the order of the trial court cancelling the notice of lis pendens (latin terms
meaning a pending suit. Notice of lis pendens is filed for the purpose of warning all persons that the title to certain
property in litigation and that if they purchase the same, they are in danger of being bound by an adverse judgment.
This is necessary in order to save innocent third party persons from any involvement in any future litigation concerning
the property.)
The antecedent facts of this case as found by the CA are:
-A complaint for quieting of title, annulment and damages was filed by petitioner (Vera Cruz) against private
respondents (Henry and Rosario Lim) before the RTC Branch 84 Malolos Bulacan alleging that he has been in possession
since 1960 a 200 square meter portion of Lot 4204 situated in Barrio Tikay, Malolos Bulacan covered by TCT No. 191498.
-Rosary Aldaba sold to Vera Cruz said 200 sqr meter portion which is included in Aldaba’s one-eight share in lot 4204
consisting of 1732 sqr meters
-A complaint for ejectment was filed against him in 1993 by private respondent Henry Lim who claims to be the owner
of the property occupied by him being a portion of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-16375 registered in his name
-The judgement of the RTC was against Vera Cruz
-Upon investigation, Vera Cruz discovered that TCT No. T-16375 in the name of Henry and Rosario Lim was obtained in
BAD FAITH by fraud and/or clever machination.
-Vera Cruz caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of TCT T-16375
-A motion to cancel notice of lis pendens was filed by the Lims on the ground that said notice was designed solely to
molest them
-Vera Cruz said the notice was to protect his right over the property covered by TCT No. T-16375 and to avoid sale of
property pending the execution of the judgment in the case.
-The judge of RTC issued an order cancelling the notice of lis pendes upon posting by the Lims of an indemnity bond in
the amount of P2,000,000.00.
-Vera Cruz’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Judge.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling the
notice of lis pendens.
Holding and Rationale
CA did not err in setting aside the decision of the trial court and was right in holding that the RTC committed grave
abuse of discretion in cancelling the notice of lis pendens.
-Sec 14 Rule 13 of the 1997 Ruled of Civil procedure states that the notice of lis pendes may be cacelled only upon order
of the court after proper showing that the notice of lis pendens is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party or that
it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded.
-Sec 77 of PD No. 1529 states the same.
-The Lims claim that the notice of lis pendens practically covers their entire land covered by TCT No. T-16375 and thus
molests their rights as owners.
-Only the PARTICULAR PROPERTY SUBJECT OF LITIGATION is covered by notice of lis pendens. In this case, only the 200
sqr meter portion of the entire are is embraced by the notice of lis pendens
-Annotating a notice does not require a proof of ownership of the property thus even though Vera Cruz has an
unregistered deed of sale, he can still annotate a notice for a notice of lis pendens does not produce a legal effect similar
to a lien or rights over a property.
-Also, in Tan v. Lantin, the law does not authorize a judge to cancel a notice upon a filing of sufficient bond.
-There is nothing in the records indicating the notice is for molesting the Lims.
Disposition: The petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.