ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-12053   May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ<br /><br />103 Phil 1023

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-12053. May 30, 1958.]

    ROBERTA DIAZ Y CRUZ, Petitioner, v. HON., JESUS Y. PEREZ, presiding Judge, 7th Branch Court of First Instance, Pasay City, ET AL., Respondents.

    Carlos, Laurea & Associates for Petitioner.

    Tañada, Teehankee & Carreon for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. GUARDIANSHIP; LIS PENDENS; ANNOTATION OF NOTICE BY REASON OF PROCEEDING PROPER. — The annotation of a notice of lis pendens is proper in guardianship proceedings. It is a proper pre-cautionary measure against instances wherein the incompetent may dispose of his properties in favor of persons who may take undue advantage of the incompetent’s advanced age and weak mental and physical condition


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    Roberta Diaz y Cruz is an old woman, 83 years of age, residing in Pasay City and possessing real and personal properties roughly estimated at half a million pesos.

    On August 18, 1956, three of her nine legitimate children, and two of her grandchildren by another daughter, joined in a petition addressed to the Rizal Court of First Instance, declare her incompetent to take care of herself and manage her properties and to appoint a guardian of her person and her properties. The allegations, too long to relate, set out a prima facie case of incompetency 1 (Special Proceeding 1483-P).

    On November 7, 1956, while the above special proceeding was pending hearing before respondent Judge Jesus Y. Perez, Roberta Diaz y Cruz received from the Register of Deeds of Rizal a letter advising her that by reason of said proceedings, a notice of lis pendens had been annotated on her Transfer Certificate of Title to real property No. 32872 of that Province.

    Wherefore, on November 29, 1956, she filed in the above-mentioned proceedings a petition to concel the lis pendens. In view of the opposition of the adverse parties, the respondent judge denied the petition. Her motion to reconsider having failed, Roberta Diaz filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond.

    But on January 22, 1957, the respondent judge disapproved the record on appeal, holding the appealed orders to be interlocutory, and therefore not appealable.

    So on February 26, 1957, this petition for mandamus and certiorari was filed in this Court. The first, to compel approval of the record on appeal; the second, to annul the order refusing cancellation of the notice of lis pendens.

    We think mandamus does not lie. As the respondent judge said, the order was interlocutory, which can not "be the subject of appeal until final judgment is rendered." (Section 2, Rule 41.) It is comparable with an order refusing to annul a preliminary attachment 2 or an order denying or granting a preliminary injunction 3 which have been held to be interlocutory. 4

    As to the certiorari, petitioner may not seriously urge lack of jurisdiction. In asking the Court to annul the lis pendens she admitted its jurisdiction to annul — and also to refuse annulment.

    Was there abuse of discretion? The lis pendens had been obviously annotated for the purpose of advising any one who might wish to buy the realty, that there is in court a petition to declare Roberta Diaz incompetent to dispose of her properties so that such purchaser may make the necessary inquiries and take steps to protect his interest, bearing in mind that if said Roberta Diaz should be declared incompetent, his purchase will be or might be affected adversely. 5 It is a proper cautionary measure which the courts should be slow to disturb, unless the petition for guardianship was prima facie unconvincing, or was not made in good faith, or as alleged by petitioner here, the pendency of guardianship proceedings may not be considered as lis pendens affecting the realties of the person allegedly incompetent.

    "The effect of filing a notice of lis pendens is to charge the stranger with notice of the particular litigations referred to in the notice; and if the notice is effective, a third party who acquires the property affected by the lis pendens takes subject to the eventuality of the litigations." 6

    And its purpose is "to hold property within the jurisdiction and control of the court pending determination of the controversy, thereby preventing third persons from acquiring such interests therein as would preclude giving effect to the judgment." 7

    In the light of the object and salutory effects of the notation, we see no reason to declare it improper in this case, specially because the allegations of the guardianship petition specified instances wherein the incompetent disposed of her properties in favor of persons allegedly taking undue advantage of her advanced age and weak mental and physical condition.

    The argument is presented that sec. 79 of Act No. 496 and sec. 24 of Rule 7 indicate the cases wherein lis pendens may be annotated, and that guardianship proceedings is not included therein. In the first place sec. 79 is not an exclusive enumeration. In the second place, these proceedings affect "the use" or possession of the real estate within the meaning of above sections, even "the title", in the sense that the proceedings will curtail or take away the right of the owner to dispose of the same.

    Anyway, it is to be doubted whether the above sections were intended to be exclusive of other circumstances wherein equity and general convenience would make lis pendens appropriate. Indeed, cases have held it to be proper in receivership proceedings 7 involving realty, and in lunacy proceedings 9 situations closely akin to the instant litigation. In this connection, it is insisted that both sections only apply to "actions" which are different from "special proceedings", like guardianship. It is enough to point out that the Rules provided for civil actions are generally applicable to special proceedings. (Rule 73, section 2.)

    Lastly, we are advised that after hearing the petition the lower court found in April 1957 that by reason of her advanced age and weak mind, Roberta Diaz could not manage her properties — she does not even remember them — and needed a guardian to help administer her interests. This, in a way, vindicates the annotation and the court’s refusal to cancel it.

    Clearly then no abuse was made of the court’s discretion. Petition denied, with costs.

    Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. In fact, on April 6, 1957, after this case had been submitted for decision the court declared her incompetent and appointed the Philippine National Bank as guardian of her properties.

    2. Olsen & Co. v. Olsen, 48 Phil., 238.

    3. Diokno v. Reyes, 7 Phil., 385; Lopez v. Dinglasan, 47 Off. Gaz., 650; 84 Phil., 292.

    4. Cf. Victorino v. Rovira, 55 Phil., 1000; Parañaque v. Court of First Instance, 70 Phil., 363.

    5. Cruz Correa v. Luciano, 52 Off. Gaz., 4683; 99 Phil., 696; Bancairen v. Diones, 98 Phil., 122.

    6. Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. Domingo, 46 Phil., 362.

    7. 34 American Jurisprudence, 364, 365.

    8. 34 American Jurisprudence, 378, 379.

    9. Corpus Juris Secundum 583.

    G.R. No. L-12053   May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ<br /><br />103 Phil 1023


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED