Family dispute

Family disputes usually arise when there is an apparent favoritism in wealth distribution among its members. This is illustrated in this case of Dona Carmen, a wealthy matron with three children, Larry, Harry and Medy.

Dona Carmen owned three valuable parcels of land in the heart of Manila. While still alive, she already executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of said three parcels in favor of her son Larry who was married to Lina. One year later, Dona Carmen died.

It was only upon their mother’s death when Harry and Medy discovered the Deed of Sale in favor of their brother Larry. At that time, Larry had already obtained new titles to the lands in his name. Feeling discriminated against and deprived of their inheritance, Harry and Medy filed a suit in court for the annulment of said Deed of Sale covering the three parcels. They claimed that their brother Larry and his wife only cajoled their mother into executing the said Deed in order to obtain titles to the lands without however paying any price or consideration for said sale.

While the court case was pending, Harry and Medy learned that Larry was intending to mortgage said lands as collateral for a loan he was applying for. So they caused a notice of lis pendens to be annotated on the titles. However, upon motion of Larry and his filing of a P100,000 bond, the court ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of the titles. Was the court correct?

No. The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reasons of public policy and necessity for the purpose of keeping the property in litigation within the power of the court until it is terminated; and of preventing the defeat of said purpose by subsequent alienation. If Larry and his wife are merely allowed to file a bond, regardless of amount, in substitution of said notice, said purpose would be defeated. The law does not authorize a judge to cancel a notice of lis pendens upon mere filing of a bond. Court can cancel said notice only (a) if it is merely for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or (b) if it is not necessary to protect the interest of the party who caused it to be recorded. In this case, it is clear that the notice is necessary to protect the interest of Harry and Medy because Larry was intending to use the property as security for a loan while the case is still pending (Tan vs. Lantin 142 SCRA 423).

*   *   *

Email: [email protected]