Lis Pendens and Judicial Authority: When Can a Court Cancel a Notice of Pending Litigation

A notice of lis pendens is a powerful tool in property litigation—it alerts the world that a property is subject to a pending case and effectively prevents its sale or transfer while the dispute continues. But who has the authority to cancel such a notice, and under what circumstances? The Supreme Court addressed these questions in Brizuela v. Mendiola (A.M. No. RTJ-00-1560, July 5, 2000), a disciplinary case that also serves as a practical guide for property owners, litigants, and practitioners.

The Case: A Dispute Over a Foreclosed Property

Martin Brizuela obtained a credit facility from Citibank secured by his property in Makati. After a disagreement over the amount owed, Citibank foreclosed on the mortgage. The property was sold at auction, and the certificate of sale was later consolidated in favor of the buyer. Brizuela filed a case to annul the auction sale and the resulting title, which was raffled to Branch 66 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati. When that case was dismissed, Brizuela appealed to the Court of Appeals.

To protect his interest during the appeal, Brizuela caused a notice of lis pendens to be annotated on the property's title, citing the pending appeal. The buyer then filed a motion for cancellation of that notice before a different branch—Branch 63—which had earlier issued a writ of possession in favor of the buyer. The judge granted the cancellation with what the complainant described as "indecent haste."

The Issue: Which Court Has Authority to Cancel?

The central question was whether Branch 63 had the authority to cancel the notice of lis pendens when the annotation was made in connection with a case pending before Branch 66, and which was then on appeal to the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court ruled that the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is merely incidental to the pending action. Therefore, the court where the action is pending—and not any other court—has the authority to resolve the cancellation. Since the underlying case was already on appeal, it was the Court of Appeals that had jurisdiction over the matter. By ordering the cancellation, Branch 63 improperly interfered with the business of the appellate court.

Procedural Violations: The Three-Day Notice Rule

The Court also found that the motion for cancellation was procedurally defective. The motion was filed at 4:50 in the afternoon of September 20, 1995, and set for hearing on the morning of September 22, 1995—a clear violation of the three-day notice requirement under Rule 15, Section 4 of the then-governing Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court emphasized that a motion to cancel a notice of lis pendens is a litigious motion. The party who caused the annotation has a right to contest the relief sought. The motion was not even served on the complainant or his counsel, which rendered it a "mere scrap of paper" that the judge should have disregarded entirely.

The Clerk of Court's False Certification

The case also involved a separate administrative charge against the branch clerk of court for issuing a certification stating that an order had become final and executory when no appeal had been filed. In fact, an appeal had been filed and was still pending at the time of the certification. The Court found that the certification was false and misleading, and reprimanded the clerk for negligence and lack of due care—even in the absence of proof of malice or resulting damage.

Practical Takeaways

• A notice of lis pendens can only be cancelled by the court where the underlying action is pending. If the case is on appeal, the appellate court has jurisdiction over the cancellation.
• Procedural rules matter. Motions to cancel a notice of lis pendens must comply with the three-day notice requirement and must be served on the adverse party. Failure to do so renders the motion a "scrap of paper."
• A notice of lis pendens is a protective measure, not a permanent obstacle. It serves to protect the rights of a party during litigation, but it is subject to cancellation by the proper court once the case is resolved or when circumstances warrant.
• Court personnel are held to a high standard of accuracy. Certifications issued by clerks of court must be truthful and carefully verified, as they carry significant legal consequences.
• When in doubt, seek the proper court's guidance. If a party believes a notice of lis pendens should be cancelled, the motion should be filed in the court handling the underlying case—not in a different branch or court.

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