Finality of Judgment Prevails: When a Notice of Lis Pendens Can Be Cancelled

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed two fundamental pillars of Philippine civil procedure: the doctrine of finality of judgment and the rule that only the court with jurisdiction over the main action may order the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens. In Republic v. Heirs of Spouses Molinyawe (G.R. No. 217120, April 18, 2016), the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed a quieting of title case that sought to undo a forfeiture judgment that had long become final and executory.

The case serves as a cautionary tale for property litigants: a final judgment cannot be collaterally attacked through a separate action, and the power to cancel a lis pendens belongs exclusively to the court that has jurisdiction over the main case.

The Facts of the Case

The dispute traces back to 1960, when the Republic filed a forfeiture case under Republic Act No. 1379 against Florentino Molinyawe and several relatives before the then Court of First Instance of Pasig (Civil Case No. 6379). The case involved three parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 75239, 76129, and 77577, which the Republic claimed were illegally acquired.

On September 22, 1972, the CFI-Pasig declared the sale of the properties null and void and ordered them forfeited in favor of the Republic. The decision became final and executory on August 23, 1974, and a writ of execution was issued in February 1975. However, the Republic failed to cancel the titles and transfer them to its name for over thirty years because Florentino did not surrender the owner's duplicate copies.

In July 2010, the heirs of Florentino filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Makati City (Civil Case No. 10-658), seeking the cancellation of the lis pendens annotated on the titles and quieting of title on the ground of prescription.

Meanwhile, the Republic filed a separate petition before RTC Branch 138 (LRC Case No. M-5469) under Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, seeking the annulment of the owner's duplicate copies and the issuance of new ones. The RTC Branch 138 ruled in favor of the Republic on September 12, 2011. That decision became final and executory, and the titles were subsequently cancelled and transferred to the Republic in April 2012.

The Issue

The central issue was whether RTC Branch 57 gravely abused its discretion in admitting the heirs' amended and supplemental petition, which sought to challenge the final and executory decisions in the forfeiture case and the LRC case.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic, holding that RTC Branch 57 committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized two key points.

First, only the court having jurisdiction over the main action may order the cancellation of a lis pendens. Citing J. Casim Construction Supplies, Inc. v. Registrar of Deeds of Las Piñas, the Court explained that a notice of lis pendens is merely an incident of the main action. Since the forfeiture case was filed before the CFI-Pasig, that court—or its successor—had exclusive power and control over the subject properties. RTC Branch 57 had no jurisdiction over the heirs' complaint.

Second, the doctrine of finality of judgment bars any modification of a final and executory decision. The Court stressed that once a judgment becomes final, it becomes immutable and unalterable. RTC Branch 57 could not admit an amended petition that effectively sought to review or overturn the final decisions of co-equal courts.

The Court also addressed the Court of Appeals' observation that Florentino's acquittal in the criminal malversation case rendered the forfeiture ineffective. The Court dismissed this as obiter dictum, noting that forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379 is a civil proceeding that is independent of any criminal case.

Practical Takeaways

• A lis pendens can only be cancelled by the court with jurisdiction over the main action. Filing a separate action for cancellation before a different court is procedurally defective.

• Final and executory judgments are immutable. They cannot be modified, altered, or collaterally attacked, even if the modification seeks to correct an alleged error of fact or law.

• Forfeiture cases under R.A. No. 1379 are civil in nature. They proceed independently of criminal cases, and an acquittal in a related criminal case does not automatically invalidate a forfeiture judgment.

• Inaction has consequences. Parties who fail to participate in proceedings or timely appeal adverse decisions risk being bound by final judgments they disagree with.

• Prescription and estoppel do not lie against the State. The Republic cannot be barred by laches or prescription in enforcing its rights.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.