View full case

ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED SUBSTITUTED BY ONE OF HER HEIRS v. RICARDO M. ILARDE

FACTS:

In 1990, petitioner Estrella Tiongco Yared filed an amended complaint against private respondents Jose B. Tiongco and Antonio Doronila Jr. seeking the annulment of an affidavit of adjudication, transfer certificates of title, reconveyance, and damages. The complaint alleged that respondent Tiongco registered the subject properties in his name, based on an affidavit of adjudication, to the prejudice of other surviving heirs of the previous owner. Petitioner and respondent Tiongco's father were siblings and heirs of the previous owner. Notices of lis pendens were annotated on the transfer certificates of title to protect petitioner's interest during the case proceedings. After respondent Tiongco filed his answer, trial ensued, and he filed motions seeking the cancellation of the notices of lis pendens, which were all denied. In December 1993, the trial court dismissed petitioner's complaint, finding it prescribed. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, and despite respondent Tiongco's motions for cancellation of the notices of lis pendens, they were denied. Respondent Tiongco's "Third Motion for Reconsideration" eventually convinced the court to order the cancellation of the lis pendens in February 1994. Petitioner sought reconsideration, and the court initially reversed itself but later reinstated its order cancelling the notices of lis pendens in March 1994.

In response to the cancellation of the notices of lis pendens, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari. The petitioner argued that the respondent judge gravely abused discretion in cancelling the notices, which were among the documents sought to be declared null and void.

Lis pendens serves the purpose of notifying the public that properties are still under the power of the court until the litigation is over, preventing the defeat of the judgment by subsequent alienation. The notice of lis pendens warns potential buyers or acquirers that they acquire an interest in the property at their own risk. The statutory bases for notice of lis pendens are found in Rule 13, Section 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 76 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

The argument was made that a notice of lis pendens is proper in various types of actions and proceedings relating to real estate. It is not necessary for the petitioner to prove ownership or interest over the property; asserting a claim of possession or title is sufficient.

The respondent judge cancelled the notices of lis pendens, stating that they were not necessary to protect the title of the party who caused its recording. However, it was pointed out that a notice of lis pendens may only be cancelled if it was for the purpose of molesting the title of the adverse party or if the annotation is unnecessary to protect the title of the party who caused it.

The respondent argued that the petition should be dismissed due to a violation of the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, as the Supreme Court should not be burdened with causes in the first instance.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a notice of lis pendens can only be cancelled on the grounds of molesting the title of the adverse party or if it is unnecessary to protect the title of the party who caused the annotation.

  2. Whether the petition should be dismissed for violating the doctrine of judicial hierarchy.

  3. Did the petitioner comply with the principle of judicial hierarchy?

  4. Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over incidents in connection with the appeal before final judgment?

  5. Whether or not the lawyer violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using abusive, offensive, and improper language.

  6. Whether or not the lawyer's actuations merit disciplinary action from the court.

RULING:

  1. Yes, a notice of lis pendens may only be cancelled on the grounds of molesting the title of the adverse party or if it is unnecessary to protect the title of the party who caused the annotation.

  2. Yes, the petition should be dismissed for violating the doctrine of judicial hierarchy.

  3. The petitioner failed to comply with the principle of judicial hierarchy. The instant petition could have been brought before the Court of Appeals, considering that the appeal of the main case was already before it.

  4. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over incidents in connection with the appeal before final judgment. The rule that no questions may be raised for the first time on appeal only applies to matters affecting the merits of the action and not to mere incidents, such as the cancellation of notices of lis pendens or the grant or dissolution of provisional remedies.

  5. Yes, the lawyer violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using abusive, offensive, and improper language.

  6. Yes, the lawyer's actuations merit disciplinary action from the court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A notice of lis pendens may only be cancelled on the grounds of molesting the title of the adverse party or if it is unnecessary to protect the title of the party who caused the annotation.

  • The doctrine of judicial hierarchy requires parties to file petitions for extraordinary writs with the appropriate lower court before resorting to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist. The hierarchy of courts should be observed to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's docket.

  • The principle of judicial hierarchy requires that lower courts should have the opportunity to rule first on cases before they are elevated to higher courts, except in exceptional and compelling circumstances. Direct resort to higher courts should be avoided if there are adequate remedies available in the lower courts.

  • The appellate court has jurisdiction over incidents in connection with the appeal before final judgment, even if questions are raised for the first time on appeal. This jurisdiction includes matters such as the cancellation of notices of lis pendens or the grant or dissolution of provisional remedies.

  • Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with courtesy and respect. The Code of Professional Responsibility sets the standards for lawyer behavior, and character assassination and reliance on gossip are not acceptable as they obscure the issues and betray a lack of discernment.

  • Lawyers have a duty to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their professional colleagues and to avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. (Canon 8)

  • Lawyers should not use language that is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper in their professional dealings. (Rule 8.01)

  • Lawyers should abstain from using scandalous, offensive, or menacing language before the courts. (Rule 11.03)

  • Lawyers are allowed some latitude of remarks or comment in the furtherance of the cause they uphold, but their arguments should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. (Romero v. Valle)

  • Lawyers who use intemperate language invite disciplinary action from the court.