IN RE: PETITION FOR CONFIRMATION OF FINAL DEED OF CONVEYANCE AND ENTRY OF NEW CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:
(“oppositor-appellant Ronquillo”) assailing the Order dated 30 September
2011[1] (“assailed Order”) of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 123, Caloocan City (“RTC”), in the
suit for confirmation of final deed of conveyance and entry of new
certificate of title, docketed as Land Registration Case Number C-5586.
The facts are as follows: Melita D. Go (“petitioner-appellee Go”) filed the Petition,[2]
alleging: on 23 June 2008, the Notice of Levy was inscribed with the
Registry of Deeds; on 01 July 2008, the Office of the City Treasurer of
Caloocan City held a public auction for the sale of a parcel of land,
with an area of of 166 square meters, located at Caloocan West, Caloocan
City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Number 125215 (“TCT
No. 125215”) and Tax Declaration Number 08-068-00036-R with Property
Index Number 113-08-068-01-021 (“subject property”), registered in the
name of Josefina Jingco (“Jingco”); petitioner-appellee Go was the
highest bidder, at the bid price of P50,000.00, and on 02 July 2008, the
Certificate of Sale was issued in favor of petitioner-appellee Go;
there was no redemption of the subject property within the one year
redemption period; on 15 July 2009, the City Treasurer of Caloocan City
executed the Final Deed of Conveyance in favor of petitioner-appellee
Go; petitioner-appellee Go paid all the taxes, and complied with all the
requisites for the transfer of the subject property under her name and
the corresponding Tax Clearance Certificate, and the Certificate
Authorizing Registration were issued, the owner’s duplicate of TCT No.
125215 is in the possession of Jingco.
The Petition prayed that the ownership of subject property be
ordered confirmed and consolidated in favor of petitioner-appellee Go,
TCT No. 125215 be cancelled, the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 125215 in
the possession of Jingco be declared null and void, and a new transfer
certificate of title in the name of petitioner-appellee Go be issued.
On 17 August 2010, the RTC issued the Order:[3]
finding the Petition sufficient in form and substance; directing that
the Land Registration Authority (“LRA”), the Bureau of Lands, the
Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City, the Office of the City Prosecutor,
and Jingco, be furnished with copies of the Order, the Petition, and
annexes; directing the Branch Sheriff to post copies of the Order once a
week for three consecutive weeks at the bulletin board of the RTC, the
Registry of Deeds of Caloocan, and the Caloocan City Hall; and setting
the hearing for the Petition on 13 September 2010.
On 13 September 2010, petitioner-appellee Go presented
evidence to prove compliance with the jurisdictional requirements for
the Petition. During the same hearing, oppositor-appellant Ronquillo
appeared, and claimed that ownership of the subject property was
transferred to her by way of donation, and raised an opposition to the
Petition. The RTC directed oppositor-appellant Ronquillo to file a
comment or opposition, and petitioner-appellee Go to file a position
paper on the comment or opposition.
Pursuant to the Order dated 13 September 2010[4] of the RTC, petitioner-appellee Go filed the Position Paper[5]
on 29 August 2010. The Position Paper reiterated the allegations in
the Petition, and added: Jingco failed to pay real property taxes on the
subject property for the period 2000-2007 in the amount of P13,705.95,
thus the City Treasurer sent notices of delinquency; despite the
notices, Jingco did not pay the real property taxes due; the Warrant of
Levy was served upon Jingco, and the Notice of Levy was served upon the
City Assessor, and the Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City; the Notice
of Delinquency in Payment of Real Property [Tax] was published in two
newspapers of general circulation; the report on the levy was submitted
to the City Council within ten days after receipt of the warrant of levy
by the delinquent taxpayer; the City Treasurer posted the notice of
public auction of the subject property at the main entrance of the
Caloocan City Hall, and in a publicly accessible and conspicuous place
of the barangay where the subject property is located, and
caused the publication of the notice of public auction, once a week for
two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Caloocan
City; oppositor-appellant Ronquillo did not prove that Jingco was
deceased, that he died without issue or surviving spouse, and that she
(oppositor-appellant Ronquillo) was the sister of Jingco;
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo alleged that she was in possession of the
subject property; oppositor-appellant Ronquillo failed to pay the
delinquent real property taxes, and subsequently, failed to redeem the
subject property; oppositor-appellant Ronquillo raised her opposition
only two years after the date of the sale; Jingco, as registered owner,
was the only party entitled to a notice of tax delinquency and other
proceedings relative to the tax sale; the service of notices addressed
to Jingco satisfied the requirements of the law; oppositor-appellant
Ronquillo should have complied with the jurisdictional requirements
under Section 267 of Republic Act No. 7160 (“RA 7160”),[6]
particularly the deposit of the requisite amount, since her opposition
was akin to an action assailing the validity of the tax sale, and
without the required deposit, the RTC was without jurisdiction to
entertain oppositor-appellant Ronquillo’s opposition.
On 13 October 2010, oppositor-appellant Ronquillo filed the Comment/Opposition.[7]
The Comment/Opposition alleged: On 18 April 2001, Jingco executed the
Deed of Donation conveying the subject property to oppositor-appellant
Ronquillo, and as the real owner of the subject property,
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo had standing to oppose the Petition; the
public auction was void (i.e.: at the time of the issuance of the
notice, the real property taxes on the subject property were fully paid
until 2004; the Notice of Sale was false, and was void; the Notice of
Delinquency, and the Final Notice of Delinquency of Real Property, were
both void; the Warrant of Levy was void for being without legal basis);
the Certificate of Sale and the Final Deed of Conveyance were without
basis, and were mere scraps of paper that did not confer rights upon
petitioner-appellee Go; oppositor-appellant Ronquillo received the
Notice of Delinquency, but not the other notices pertinent to the public
auction proceedings; no certificate of sale nor certificate of award
was sent to oppositor-appellant Ronquillo on the alleged date of public
auction; there was no receipt to prove the payment of the bid price of
the subject property; the excess (i.e., P17,530.18) of the bid price
(i.e., P50,000.00) over the alleged tax delinquency (i.e., P32,468.82)
was never remitted to oppositor-appellant Ronquillo; oppositor-appellant
Ronquillo paid the real property taxes on the subject property for the
years 2003 and 2004 on 05 February 2004, as evidenced by Official
Receipt Nos. 0210832 and 1581890, respectively; the real property taxes
on the subject property for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and
2010 were paid on 30 March 2009, as evidence by Official Receipt Nos.
0459950, 0516800, and 0459951, respectively; payment of the real
property taxes on the subject property on 30 March 2009, was within the
redemption period, and thus invalidated the Certificate of Sale; the Sangguniang Panlungsod
Certification certified there was no record of public auction affecting
the subject property; the failure to report the public auction to the Sangguniang Panlungsod,
and the failure to remit the excess proceeds to the registered owner,
barred the running of the one year redemption period;
petitioner-appellee Go had no cause of action, and the Petition had no
merit; the Position Paper must be expunged from the records for
petitioner-appellee Go’s counsel’s non-compliance with the requirement
of inscription of MCLE number and its date of issuance.
Trial ensued.
The following persons testified for petitioner-appellee Go: petitioner-appellee Go;[8] Atty. Phillip Yam (officer-in-charge of the Real Property Tax Division, Office of the City Treasurer, Caloocan City);[9] and Alma dela Cruz (examiner, Register of Deeds, Caloocan City).[10]
The evidence for petitioner-appellee Go is summarized, thus:
Jingco declared for taxation purposes, two parcels of land in Caloocan
City, i.e., the subject property covered by Property Index No.
113-08-068-01-021, and another property covered by Property Index No.
113-08-068-01-022;[11] in 2008, the Caloocan City Treasurer issued the Notice of Delinquency of Real Estate Tax[12]
on the property with Property Index No. 113-08-068-01-022 for the years
2000-2007, and 2008, and the Notice of Delinquency of Real Estate Tax[13]
on the subject property with Property Index No. 113-08-068-01- 021 for
the years 2000-2007, and 2008, and the Final Notice of Delinquency of
Real Estate Tax[14] on the
subject property with Property Index No. 113-08- 068-01-021, and the
Final Notice for Delinquency of Real Estate Tax on property under
Property Index No. 113-08-068-01-021 for the years 2000- 2007; these
notices were personally served, through endorsement to the barangay
officials of Barangay 68,[15] and as shown by the signatures[16]
of the persons who received them, appearing at the bottom portion of
the Notices; the Caloocan City Treasurer caused the publication of the
Notice of Delinquency in Payment of Real Property in the 26 May 2008,
and the 16 June 2008 issues of the Manila Bulletin,[17] and the 26 May 2008 issue of the Manila Standard Today;[18] a notice was also posted in the barangay where the delinquent properties were located;[19] on 16 June 2008, the Caloocan City Treasurer issued the Warrant of Levy[20] for the subject property with PIN 113-08-068-021, and the Warrant of Levy[21]
for the property with PIN 113- 08-068-022; the Warrants were ordered
annotated on TCT No. 125215, and on the respective tax declarations of
the properties;[22] the Notice of Sale was published in the 18 June 2008, and 25 June 2008 issues of the Manila Bulletin,[23] and was posted at the barangay where the properties were located;[24] petitioner-appellee Go registered for the public auction of delinquent properties;[25]
during the public auction on 9 July 2008 at the Caloocan City Hall,
petitioner-appellee Go won the bid for the subject property covered by
TCT No. 125215,[26] and Tax Declaration No. 08-068- 00360-R,[27] with PIN 113-08-068-01-021, and petitioner-appellee Go paid P50,000.00 for which the corresponding receipts,[28] and the Certificate of Sale Certificate of Sale of Delinquent Property to Purchaser dated 01 July 2008,[29] were issued; the Certificate of Sale was annotated at the back of TCT No. 125215;[30]
since the subject property was not redeemed within the oneyear
redemption period, the Final Deed of Conveyance was issued in
petitioner-appellee Go’s favor;[31]
two years after the public auction, petitioner-appellee Go filed the
Petition; in compliance with the notice requirement, the Petition was
posted in conspicuous places; Vice Mayor Erice approached
petitioner-appellee Go to ask for settlement, but petitionerappellee Go
declined, in view of the pending Petition; during the initial hearing on
the Petition on 13 September 2010, oppositor-appellant Ronquillo raised
a verbal opposition without stating any basis; a committee hearing of
the City Council was held, where it was resolved that the City Council
had no power to hear the case.
On 30 September 2011, the RTC issued the assailed Order. The dispositive portion of the assailed Order read:
In view of all the foregoing, the opposition interposed by Estrellita J. Ronquillo is hereby denied.
Insofar as the petition is concerned, petitioner was able to
substantiate her allegations and therefore, it is hereby granted.
Pursuant to Sec. 74 of PD 1529, the ownership of the property covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 125215 of the Registry of Deeds of
Caloocan City is hereby confirmed and consolidated in favor of
petitioner.The Registry of Deeds is hereby directed to admit
the registration of the Final Bill of Sale thereby cancelling Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 125215 in the name of Josefina Jingco only
insofar as Lot No. 6291 with an area of 166 square meters is concerned
and to issue in its stead a new certificate of title in the name of
petitioner Melita Go.Moreover, the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 125215 in
the Registry of Deeds insofar as Lot 6291 with an area of 166 square
meters more or less in the possession of the registered owner and/or
oppositor is declared null and void.
Thus, this appeal, with the following assignment of errors:
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ALLOWING THE PETITION DESPITE FAILURE OF THE
APPELLEE TO COMPLY WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMETS? [sic]WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE
APPELLEE ON MATTERS RELEVANT, PERTINENT AND CONNECTED WITH MATTERS
STATED IN HER JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT? [sic]WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT AS OPPOSITOR TO PRESENT
HER EVIDENCE? [sic]WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CONFIRMATION OF FINAL DEED
OF SALE DESPITE MANIFEST AND PATENT IRREGULARITIES COMMITTED DURING THE
PUBLIC AUCTION[32]
The issue is whether the RTC erred in issuing the assailed Order,
which granted the petition for confirmation of the cancellation of TCT
NO. 125215, and allowed the issuance of a new certificate of title in
favor of petitioner-appellee Go.
The Appellant’s Brief[33]
answers in the affirmative. The RTC erred in issuing the assailed
Order. It thrusts: the failure of the branch sheriff to post copies of
the Order dated 17 August 2010 at the Registry of Deeds, the Caloocan
City Hall, and at the subject property, prevented oppositor-appellant
Ronquillo from timely raising an opposition, and ousted the RTC of its
jurisdiction; in sustaining the objections of petitioner-appellee Go’s
counsel during her cross-examination, the RTC disallowed questions
within the ambit of the Judicial Affidavit[34]
she submitted, which were material and relevant to the subject matter;
the RTC Judge showed partiality in favor of petitioner-appellee Go in
the presentation of evidence, contrary to the nature of LRC Case No.
C-5586 which was an adversary proceeding, not an ex-parte
application; the RTC unjustly disallowed oppositor-appellant Ronquillo
from presenting evidence, on the ground of absence of counsel, who had
to attend an earlier scheduled hearing on the same day; on 18 April
2001, Jingco executed the Deed of Donation in favor of
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo, and oppositor-apellant Ronquillo, as true
and lawful owner of the subject property, had the legal personality to
oppose the Petition; the Petition should have been denied on the grounds
of failure to comply with Sections 223, 254, 258, and 260 of RA 7160,
and of mootness since the subject property had been redeemed; the Notice
of Delinquency of Payment was fatally defective because it did not
state that personal property may be distrained to effect payment, that
any time before the distraint of personal property, payment of
delinquent taxes may be made, that unless payment is made within the
year the taxes were due, the property will be sold at a public auction,
that title to the property will be vested in the purchaser, and that the
property may be redeemed within one year from the date of sale; Jingco
died on 26 May 2001, thus she did not receive the notices or pertinent
documents allegedly served after said date, although it would appear
from the documents that Jingco was the one who received, acknowledged,
and signed for the notices; oppositor-appellant Ronquillo was not served
with any notice, or warrant; the property covered by TCT No. 125215
consists of three undivided lots, separately declared for taxation in
PINs 113-08-068-01-020, 113-08-068-01-021, and 113-08-068-01-022; since
the alleged delinquency was only for the property declared in PIN No.
113-08-068-01-020, the levy and public auction should have been limited
to said lot, and not the entire property; the value of the subject
property was more than the alleged tax delinquency; only a usable
portion of the subject property should have been included in the public
auction, pursuant to Section 260[35]
of RA 7160; the public auction was void for non-compliance with Section
260 of RA 7160; petitioner-appellee Go was unjustly enriched because
she only paid P50,000.00 for the subject property, when it was assessed
at P144,000.00; it was the Office of the Vice Mayor, and not the Sangguniang Panlungsod,
which was furnished with a copy of the report on the public auction;
the Office of the City Council issued the Certification dated 17
September 2010 stating that no report of the public auction existed in
their records; the excess of P17,530.18 of the auction proceeds over the
tax delinquency, was not given to oppositor-appellant Ronquillo, and
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo was not notified of her entitlement to
this excess; oppositor-appellant Ronquillo paid taxes due on the subject
property for the years 2000-2004; the reckoning period for the
assessment of real property taxes should have been 2005, and not 2000;
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo’s payment of real property taxes on 30
July 2009, prior to the end of the one-year redemption period on 01 July
2009, should be considered a redemption, and thus the Certificate of
Sale should be invalidated; the entire proceeding from assessment up to
the issuance of the Certificate of Sale, was imbued with fraud and
misrepresentation.
The Appellee’s Brief[36]
answers in the negative. The RTC did not err in issuing the assailed
Order. It parries: merely being the sister of Jingco did not clothe
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo with legal right or interest over the
subject property; oppositor-appellant Ronquillo did not provide proof
that Jingco died intestate without issue, or surviving spouse; in her
letter to the the City Vice Mayor, oppositor-appellant Ronquillo
represented that her parents owned the subject property, however, before
the RTC, oppositor-appellant Ronquillo represented that Jingco owned
the subject property; the instrument of donation was of suspicious
authenticity, and was not registered nor annotated on the certificate of
title of the subject property; oppositor-appellant Ronquillo raised her
opposition for the first time in her letter to the City Vice Mayor on
23 August 2010, and in her oral opposition during the hearing on 13
September 2010; the notices addressed to Jingco, the registered owner of
the subject property, met the requirements of the law; under Section
261 of RA 7160, the one-year redemption period is reckoned from the date
of the actual sale, and not from the date of registration of the sale,
thus, the absence of annotation of the Certificate of Sale will not
prevent the consolidation of the ownership over the subject property;
all statutory notices for the public auction were complied with;
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo failed to pay the tax delinquency despite
several notices, and failed to redeem the subject property; despite the
failure of the branch sheriff to post the Order dated 17 August 2010,
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo was still notified since the branch
sheriff personally served a copy to her, and thus the personal notice
allowed oppositor-appellant Ronquillo to register her opposition during
the hearing on 13 September 2010; the RTC correctly disallowed
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo from propounding questions that tended to
establish her case through cross-examination; Rule 32, Section 11 of the
Rules of Court is not applicable, since petitioner-appellee Go was not
called as witness for oppositor-appellant Ronquillo; the records of the
proceedings showed that oppositor-appellant Ronquillo’s
cross-examination was lengthy and exhaustive; by virtue of the
allegations and the relief prayed for in the Petition, it can be said
that the proceedings before the RTC were ex-parte; the essence
of the proceedings before the RTC was merely to judicially confirm the
Final Deed of Sale, and to compel the issuance of a new certificate of
title; even if the Petition was an ex-parte proceedings, it was
converted into a full-blown trial, where oppositor-appellant Ronquillo
was allowed to intervene and conduct her cross-examination;
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo manifested before the RTC that she would
no longer participate in the case; oppositor-appellant Ronquillo and her
counsel, unreasonably failed to appear during the 22 August 2011
hearing, and failed to file the necessary motion for postponement
beforehand, and despite the battery of lawyers of oppositor-appellant
Ronquillo, no lawyer attended the hearing to offer an explanation, thus
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo and counsel are estopped by their
conduct, to assert that they were deprived of the opportunity to present
evidence; records show that Jingco failed to pay real property taxes on
the subject property for the period 2000-2007; the City Treasure of
Caloocan exercised the power to levy and collect real property taxes
over the subject property in accordance with the procedures laid down by
RA 7160; the receipts allegedly evidencing payment of real property
taxes until 2004 were suspicious; the notices were sent to Jingco, who
was the registered owner, and not to oppositor-appellant Ronquillo;
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo’s alleged payment of the redemption price
was not in compliance with the requirements of Section 261 of RA 7160,
as it did not include the interest due, the expenses of sale, and the
interest of not more than 2% per month on the purchase price.
THE COURT’S RULING
We rule in the negative. The RTC did not err in issuing the
assailed Order. There was valid basis to allow the Petition, and to
grant the confirmation and consolidation of title over the subject
property in the name of petitioner-appellee Go.
THE RTC HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES.
Oppositor-appellant Ronquillo argues the RTC was ousted of its
jurisdiction when she was prevented from raising a timely opposition,
because of the alleged failure of the branch sheriff to post copies of
the Order dated 17 August 2010 at the Registry of Deeds, the Caloocan
City Hall, and the subject property.
We disagree.
The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted
by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.
The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the
presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable
intendment will be made in support of the presumption, and in case of
doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful, construction
should be in favor of its lawfulness.[37]
In this case, oppositor-appellant did not present evidence to
prove that the branch sheriff failed to post copies of the Order dated
17 August 2010. In the absence of credible evidence, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties prevails. In
addition, assuming arguendo that the branch sheriff did not
post copies of the Order dated 17 August 2010, petitioner-appellee Go
cannot be made to suffer the consequences of such failure.
Moreover, records show that oppositor-appellant Ronquillo was
able to raise her opposition, and actively participate in the
proceedings before the RTC. Oppositor-appellant Ronquillo submitted
pleadings and papers, her counsel conducted cross-examination on the
witnesses for petitioner-appellee Go, asked for postponement of
hearings, and filed the Motion for Voluntary Inhibition.[38]
Evidently, by seeking affirmative relief other than the dismissal of
the case, oppositor-appellant Ronquillo manifested her voluntary
submission to the court’s jurisdiction. It is well settled that the
active participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount to an
invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the
resolution of the case, and will bar said party from later on impugning
the court’s jurisdiction. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a
court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction.[39]
OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT RONQUILLO
WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PERSONAL NOTICE,
AND DID NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING
TO REGISTER AN OPPOSITION.
Oppositor-appellant Ronquillo posits that because she is the
true owner of the subject property, she was entitled to personal notice
of the public auction, and had legal standing to raise an opposition in
the proceedings before the RTC.
We find this position untenable.
As for entitlement to personal notice for the public auction, Section 260 of RA 7160 is relevant. It reads:
SECTION 260. Advertisement and
Sale. – Within thirty (30) days after service of the warrant of levy,
the local treasurer shall proceed to publicly advertise for sale or
auction the property or a usable portion thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy the tax delinquency and expenses of sale. The
advertisement shall be effected by posting a notice at the main entrance
of the provincial, city or municipal building, and in a publicly
accessible and conspicuous place in the barangay where the real property
is located, and by publication once a week for two (2) weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province, city or municipality
where the real property is located. The advertisement shall
specify the amount of the delinquent tax, the interest due thereon and
expenses of sale, the date and place of sale, the name of the owner of
the real property or person having legal interest therein, and a
description of the property to be sold. At any time before the date
fixed for the sale, the owner or person having legal interest therein
may stay the proceedings by paying the delinquent tax, the interest due
thereon and the expenses of sale. The sale shall be held either at the
main entrance of the provincial, city or municipal building, or on the
property to be sold, or at any other place as specified in the notice of
the sale.xxx.
(Emphases supplied.)
The above-quoted provision of RA 7160 does not require personal
notice to satisfy procedural due process in public auctions of
delinquent real property. What the law requires is public advertisement
of the notices, by the posting of notices at the entrance of the
provincial, city or municipal hall, and at a conspicuous place in the
barangay where the real property is located, and by publication once a
week for two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province, city or municipality where the real property is located.
In this case, petitioner-appellee Go adduced evidence to show
that the notices for the intended public sale of the subject property,
was publicly advertised. The Notice of Sale was published in the 18
June 2008, and the 25 June 2008 issues of the Manila Bulletin.[40] It was also posted at the barangay where the subject property was located.[41] Thus, there was compliance with the two modes of advertisement prescribed by law.
Anent oppositor-appellant Ronquillo’s legal standing, we find
that her claim of ownership had no basis. Oppositor-appellant Ronquillo
anchored her legal standing on her alleged ownership of the property,
by virtue of the Deed of Donation supposedly executed in her favor by
Jingco, the registered owner. However, assuming it was authentic, the
Deed of Donation binds Jingco and oppositor-appellant Ronquillo only,
and not third parties. It is enough, between parties to a donation of
an immovable property, that the donation be made in a public document
but, in order to bind third persons, the donation must be registered in
the registry of property (Registry of Land Titles and Deeds).[42] Section 51 of Presidential Decree No. 1529[43]
requires conveyances and other dealings in real property to be
registered before the Register of Deeds, so as to bind third parties.
In this case, oppositor-appellant Ronquillo did not allege, and did not
adduce evidence, to prove that the Deed of Donation was properly
annotated in the certificate of title kept in the office of the Register
of Deeds. Thus, the Deed of Donation cannot be given evidentiary
weight as the basis of oppositor-appellant Ronquillo’s claim of
ownership over the subject property.
In addition, without proof of ownership, oppositor-appellant
Ronquillo cannot assail the validity of the public auction, or the
proceedings connected thereto. Section 267 of RA 7160[44]
provides for the invalidation of tax sales on the basis of
irregularities or informalities in the proceedings only when the
substantive rights of the delinquent owner of the real property or the
person having legal interest therein have been impaired. Since
oppositor-appellant Ronquillo failed to substantiate her claim of
ownership, she cannot invoke Section 267 to annul the public auction
covering the subject property.
As an aside, we clarify that the petition for consolidation of
ownership must be filed as an ordinary civil action, not as a land
registration case.[45]
We DISMISS the appeal, and AFFIRM
the Order dated 30 September 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
123, Caloocan City, in Land Registration Case Number C-5586.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Veloso (Chairperson) and Lantion, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, Volume 2, p. 230.
[2] Records, Volume 1, p. 02.
[3] Exhibit “B,” Records, Volume 1, p. 19.
[4] Records, Volume 1, p. 23.
[5] Records, Volume 1, p. 24.
[6] SECTION 267. Action Assailing Validity of Tax Sale.
– No court shall entertain any action assailing
the validity of any sale at public auction of real property or
rights therein under this Title until the taxpayer shall have deposited
with the court the amount for which the real property was sold,
together with interest of two percent (2%) per month from the
date of sale to the time of the
institution of the action. The amount so deposited shall be paid to the purchaser at the auction sale if
the deed is declared in valid but it shall be returned to the depositor if the action fails.
Neither shall any court declare a sale at public auction invalid by reason of irregularities or
informalities in the proceedings unless the substantive rights of the delinquent owner of the real
property or the person having legal interest therein have been impaired.
(Emphasis supplied.)
[7] Records, Volume 1, p. 96.
[8] Judicial Affidavit of petitioner-appellee Go, Exhibit “Q,” Records, Volume 2, p. 61.
[9] Judicial Affidavit (Witness – Atty. Phillip Yam), Exhibit “MM,” Records, Volume 2, p. 168.
[10] T.S.N. dated 06 May 2011.
[11] Tax Declaration No. 08-068-00036-R (PIN 113-08-068-01-021) and Tax Declaration No. 08-068-
00037-R (PIN 113-08-068-01-022), Exhibits “R” and “R-1,” Records, Volume 2, pp. 72-23.
[12] Exhibit “S,” Records, Volume 2, p. 74.
[13] Exhibits “T” and “T-2,” Records, Volume 2, pp. 75-76.
[14] Exhibit “T-5,” Records, Volume 2, p. 77.
[15] Acknowledgment Receipt, Exhibit “U,” Records, Volume 2, p. 78.
[16] Receivers’ signatures, Exhibits “S-1,” “T-1,” and “T-3,” Records, Volume 2, pp. 74-75, 77.
[17] Exhibits “V” and “V-1,” Records, Volume 2, pp. 79-94.
[18] Exhibit “W,” Records, Volume 2, p. 106.
[19] Certification, Exhibit “X,” Records, Volume 2, p. 124.
[20] Exhibit “Z,” Records, Volume 2, p. 125.
[21] Exhibit “AA,” Records, Volume 2, p. 131.
[22] Notice of Levy on Land with PIN 113-068-01-021, and Notice of Levy on Land with PIN 113-068-01-
022, Exhibits “NN” and “OO,” Records, Volume 2, pp. 179, 181.
[23] Exhibits “BB” and “CC,” Records, Volume 2, pp. 133, 140.
[24] Certification, Exhibit “EE,” Records, Volume 2, p. 149.
[25] Registration, Exhibit “F,” Records, Volume 2, p. 30.
[26] Exhibit “G,” Records, Volume 2, p. 36.
[27] Exhibit “H,” Records, Volume 2, p. 38.
[28] Official Receipt Nos. CAL 2632437, 2632501, and 2632502, Exhibits “J-1” to “J-3,” Records, Volume
2, pp. 41-44.
[29] Exhibit “I,” Records, Volume 2, p. 39.
[30] Exhibit “K,” Records, Volume 2, p. 47.
[31] Exhibit “L,” Records, Volume 2, p. 48.
[32] Appellant’s Brief dated 16 August 2012, CA Rollo, p. 32.
[33] Id.
[34] Supra, at note 8.
[35] SECTION 260. Advertisement and Sale. – Within thirty (30) days after service of the warrant of
levy, the local treasurer shall proceed to publicly advertise for sale or auction the property or a
usable portion thereof as may be necessary to satisfy the tax delinquency and expenses of sale. xxx.
(Emphasis supplied.)
[36] CA Rollo, p. 78.
[37] Bustillo, et al. v. People, G.R. No. 160718, 12 May 2010, citing People v. De Guzman, G.R. No.
106025, 09 February 1994.
[38] Records, Volume 1, p. 230.
[39] NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited v. Lepanto Consolidated Minging Company, G.R. No.
175799, 28 November 2011, citing Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Dy Hong Pi, G.R. No.
171137, 05 June 2009; Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. v. Cabrigas, 477 Phil. 369, 390 (2001).
[40] Supra, at note 23.
[41] Supra, at note 24.
[42] Shopper’s Paradise Realty & Development Corporation v. Roque, G.R. No. 148775, 13 January 2004,
citing Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110335, 18 June 2001.
[43] Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. – An owner of registered land may
convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He
may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law.
But no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect
registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract
between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as
third persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in
the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies. (Emphasis supplied.)
[44] Supra, at note 6.
[45] Ignacio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98920, 14 July 1995.