Gonzalez v.

Ordonez-Benitez
G.R. No. 42514, 25 January 1990
Notice of Lis Pendens; Conjugal Properties
J. Narvasa

FACTS:

The case concerns Rodolfo P. Gonzalez and his two marriages. On one hand, he
contracted his first marriage with Carmen Rojas, and they had four children, one of
which is Salvador. As Carmen Rojas passed away in 2 May 1937, Rodolfo contracted a
second marriage with Dr. Luz Dizon, in which they had two children.

On 11 November 1974, Rodolfo and Dr. Luz executed an “Agreement for Dissolution of
Conjugal Partnership and for Establishment of Separation of Property” before the
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court of Manila. The purpose of this agreement is to
avoid confusion and/or differences between the two heirs of Rodolfo regarding his
properties in case of his death.

Subsequently, Salvador Gonzalez, the eldest of the heirs in Rodolfo’s first marriage,
instituted a proceeding with the same Court to place Rodolfo’s properties under
guardianship. This is based on the allegation by Salvador that his father is incapacitated
to manage and direct his financial and ownership status due to deterioration of mental
faculties, old age and illness.

On 4 May 1975, Rodolfo and Dr. Luz executed a contract of sale in favour of Helen
Grace and Rica Marie Silvestre for two parcels of land, covered by TCT No. 6803 and
6802. These two lands are also covered by mortgages held by Philippine Trust
Company and Philippine National Bank. When the mortgagors learned about the sale,
they were not willing to accede to assume the vendee’s obligation to them. On the other
hand, Rodolfo and Dr. Luz acted to annotate the sales on the titles as adverse claims.

Sometime in September 1975, Salvador Gonzalez caused notices of lis pendens to be

annotated on the properties of Rodolfo and Dr. Luz in Rizal and Cavite, with the latter
property being named to the latter spouses and denominated as paraphernal property.
The basis for the notice of lis pendens by Salvador is due to the pending guardianship
proceeding involving the property of Rodolfo.

In filing a petition for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, Rodolfo argued that,
among others, that the notice of lis pendens were intended to harass and molest the
Gonzales Spouses which they have been prevented from dealing with their properties
causing them irreparable injury, and that since they are still alive, they are entitled to the
full exercise of their right over their conjugal assets and should not be deprived thereof.
Salvador argues in reply and conceding that while guardianship is not expressly
included in the enumeration of cases in Act No 496 and the Rules of Court, he argues
that such proceeding is not excluded from the coverage of said laws.

The Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court held that, the purpose of the notice of lis
pendens has not been established for molesting the proposed ward and that it is not
necessary to protect the rights of the petitioners, considering especially, the fact that
efforts are being made to dispose of some properties pertaining to the proposed ward.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the notice of lis pendens as issued by the Juvenile & Domestic Relations
Court was made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

HELD:

The Court held that the notice of lis pendens issued was not made with grave abuse of
discretion

The Court explained that since Salvador did not caused the notice of lis pendens to be
an act of molestation of the proposed ward nor to protect the rights of the heirs in
Rodolfo’s first marriage, rather, the notice of lis pendens is intended as a constructive
notice to all parties that in instances where the property may be encumbered, such
parties may be notified of the guardianship proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.