[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
66 views3 pages

Lis Pendens in Property Partition Cases

This case discusses the purpose and cancellation of a notice of lis pendens. Specifically, it analyzes whether a notice of lis pendens amounts to a collateral attack on a title that has been registered for over 28 years. The court held that a notice of lis pendens does not constitute a collateral attack on a certificate of title, as it only serves to announce that a property is in litigation. Further, ownership cannot be definitively resolved and partitioned without first determining ownership in the case. A notice of lis pendens can only be cancelled if it was filed to improperly interfere with the adverse party's title or if it is not necessary to protect the filing party's claim to the property.

Uploaded by

Thessaloe B. Fernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
66 views3 pages

Lis Pendens in Property Partition Cases

This case discusses the purpose and cancellation of a notice of lis pendens. Specifically, it analyzes whether a notice of lis pendens amounts to a collateral attack on a title that has been registered for over 28 years. The court held that a notice of lis pendens does not constitute a collateral attack on a certificate of title, as it only serves to announce that a property is in litigation. Further, ownership cannot be definitively resolved and partitioned without first determining ownership in the case. A notice of lis pendens can only be cancelled if it was filed to improperly interfere with the adverse party's title or if it is not necessary to protect the filing party's claim to the property.

Uploaded by

Thessaloe B. Fernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

LLEEK SHENG VS CA

G.R. No. 115402, July 15, 1998

o purpose of notice of lis pendens and when it may be cancelled

FACTS:

After his mother's death, petitioner filed a complaint against his father, private respondent, to
partition the conjugal properties of his parents.

In answer, respondent alleged that four parcels of land registered in petitioner's name are
conjugal properties. They were only registered in petitioner's name because at the time, he was
the only Filipino citizen in the family. Accordingly, respondent prayed for dismissal of the
partition case and to reconvey said parcel of lands to him.

In the meantime, respondent caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the land during
pendency of case. Petitioner moved to cancel the notice of lis pendens but trial court dismissed
his motion.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

(1) W/N it was proper to pass upon ownership in a partition case


(2) W/N a notice of lis pendens amounts to a collateral attack of his title obtained more than 28
years ago

HELD:

The annotation of lis pendens does not in any case amount nor can it ever be considered as
equivalent to a collateral attack of the certificate of title for a parcel of land.

What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title. The certificate
referred to is that document issued by the Register of Deeds known as the Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT). By title, the law refers to ownership which is represented by that document.
Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of a
piece of land. Registration is not the equivalent of title, but is only the best evidence thereof.

A notice of lis pendens may only be cancelled on two grounds: (1) if the annotation was for the
purpose of molesting the title of the adverse party; (2) when the annotation is not necessary to
protect the title of the party who caused it to be recorded.
A notice of lis pendens is only for the purpose of announcing "to the whole world that a
particular real property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest
over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over
said property."

On the contention that ownership cannot be passed upon in a partition case, suffice it to say
that until and unless ownership is definitely resolved, it would be premature to effect partition of
the property.

You might also like