Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83277:57271&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:26:21+00:00

Document:
GENATO INVESTMENTS, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE OSCAR P. BARRIENTOS, In His Capacity As The Presiding Judge of The Regional Trial Court, of Caloocan City, Branch 123, EMILY P. DIZON, In Her Capacity As The Branch Clerk of Court of The Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 123, JIMMY T. SORO, Court Process Server of The Regional Trial Court of Caloocan, Branch 123, EVELINA M. GARMA, CITY TREASURER OF CALOOCAN CITY, PHILLIP L. YAM, Officer-In-Charge, Real Property Tax Division of The Caloocan City Treasurer’s Office, ANTHONY B. PULMANO, Officer-In-Charge, City Assessor of Caloocan City, And LAVERNE REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 of the Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 27 February 2013, which denied petitioner Genato Investment, Inc.’s (petitioner) Petition3 for Annulment of Judgment against the Orders dated 31 August 20114 and 26 April 20125 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (RTC Caloocan) in LRC-Case No. C-5748. In the said orders, the RTC Caloocan granted private respondent Laverne Realty & Development Corporation’s (private respondent) Petition6 for the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 333417 of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City in the name of petitioner and the issuance of a new title in the name of private respondent, and directed the issuance of a Writ of Possession8 over the subject property in favor of private respondent.
TCT No. 33341 is registered under the name of petitioner and covers two (2) adjacent parcels of land, Lots Nos. 1-A and 13-B-1, situated at Rizal Avenue Extension, Caloocan City, with a combined area of 796.80 sq.m., with Lot No. 1-A having an area of 341.00 sq.m., and Lot No. 13-B-1 having an area of 445.80 sq.m., more or less. Together, both lots have a total assessed value of P8,697,870.00.
On 14 October 2009, due to alleged deficiency in real property taxes due on Lot No. 13-B-1 for the years 1993 to 2008 in the amount of P2,678,439.04, the Office of the City Treasurer of Caloocan City sold at public auction Lot No. 13-B-1, in which private respondent emerged as the highest bidder.
The Office of the City Treasurer, through the City Treasurer of Caloocan, Evelina M. Garma (respondent Garma), issued on 15 October 2009, a Certificate of Sale of Delinquent Property to Purchaser9 and on 21 January 2011, a Final Deed of Conveyance10 over Lot 13-B-1 in favor of private respondent.
The RTC issued an Order on 13 June 2011 setting the initial hearing on the Petition, and directing that copies of the said order be posted at the subject premises and furnished petitioner. However, the records of the case, particularly the Certificate of Posting15 dated 16 July 2011 and the Process Server's Returns dated 13 and 16 July 201116 executed by respondent Jimmy T. Soro (respondent Soro), the Process Server of RTC Caloocan, will show that the order was not posted at the subject premises, and that petitioner did not receive any such copies of the Order, as respondent Soro sought to serve the same at the inexistent offices.
On 31 August 2011, after private respondent adduced its evidence, the RTC Caloocan issued an Order17 granting private respondent's petition. Inasmuch as petitioner was unaware of the proceedings, the same order became final and executory. Thereafter, RTC Caloocan, upon motion18 of private respondent, issued another Order dated 26 April 2012 directing the issuance of a Writ of Possession in favor of private respondent. The said writ,19 signed by the Branch Clerk of the RTC Caloocan, respondent Emily P. Dizon (respondent Dizon), was issued on 27 April 2012.
Petitioner learned of the auction sale only after 9 May 2012, when the Sheriff of the RTC Caloocan, respondent Renebert B. Baloloy (respondent Baloloy), left a Notice to Vacate20 in the subject premises. Petitioner claimed that it was very much surprised at the auction sale of Lot 13-B-1 because it had been religiously paying its real property taxes thereon up to 2012. In fact, it had in its possession a Certification21 dated 19 September 2011 issued by the Office of the City Treasurer of Caloocan, through its OIC Land Tax Division, respondent Phillip L. Yam (respondent Yam), stating that the real property taxes due on Lots 1-A and 13-B-1, with a combined assessed value of P8,697,870.00, up to the 4th quarter of 2011, have been duly paid by petitioner.
Notwithstanding the representations made by petitioner with the RTC Caloocan22 and Office of the City Treasurer, Baloloy, proceeded to implement the Writ of Possession on 15 May 2012 over both Lots Nos. 1-A and 13-B-1 and their improvements. As a result thereof, private respondent wrested physical possession of the entire property covered by TCT No. 33341 from petitioner.
On 14 January 2013, petitioner, filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment praying, among others, for the annulment and setting aside of the Orders dated 31 August 2011 and 26 April 2012 and the Writ of Possession issued by the RTC Caloocan. Petitioner likewise prayed that the CA direct private respondent to vacate the property and surrender possession thereof to petitioner.
b. All the requisite elements for the filing of a petition for annulment of judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and want of due process, are present in this case.
Under Rule 38, when a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside. The verified petition must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered. However, it is uncontested that petitioner learned about the proceedings in LRC-Case No. C-5748 more than six (6) months after the Order dated 31 August 2011 had become final and executory on 11 October 2011. Thus, this remedy under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court was clearly unavailing.
Thus, the only remedy left to petitioner in this case is a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, which it, in fact, filed.
We have repeatedly ruled that a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies. The same petition is not available as a substitute for a remedy which was lost due to the party’s own neglect in promptly availing of the same.31 There is here no attempted substitution; annulment of judgment is the only remedy available to petitioner.
Regarding the previous filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 such is of no moment as petitioner timely withdrew the same before any relief could be afforded by the CA.
We now proceed to the substantive and more pressing issue. We agree with the position of petitioner that all the requisite elements for the filing of a petition for annulment of judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and want of due process, are present in this case.
It should be stressed that petitioner instituted the case before the CA precisely to seek relief from the declaration of nullity of TCT No. 33341, which had been issued without first giving petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Petitioner not only puts in question the complete lack of due process in the conduct of the auction sale and the proceedings before the RTC Caloocan, but the absolute lack of basis for the declaration by the Office of the City Treasurer that it had been delinquent in the payment of real property taxes due on its property, particularly Lot 13-B-1.
Technicalities aside, we are particularly alarmed by the material allegations and serious charges brought up by petitioner in its pleadings, which go into the very core of the action for annulment of judgment and, more importantly, which none of the respondents dispute.
Petitioner fully paid its real estate taxes due on Lot 13-B-1.
Petitioner confronts respondents with copies of its Real Property Tax Receipts33 issued by the Office of the City Treasurer of the City of Caloocan spanning the period from 2000 to 2012, as well as the Payment History34 from 1995 to 2011 evidencing full payment of real property taxes due on its land, whose assessed value was adjusted in 2005 to P8,697,870.00.
Petitioner likewise confronts respondents with the Certification35 dated 19 September 2011 issued by the Office of the City Treasurer of Caloocan, through its OIC Land Tax Division, respondent Yam, certifying that the real property taxes due on Lots 1-A and 13-B-1, with an assessed value of P8,697,870.00, up to the 4th quarter of 2011, and previous years, have been duly paid by petitioner.
We note that respondents, particularly respondents Garma and Yam, the City Treasurer and the OIC Land Tax Division, have been inexplicably silent as regards all that petitioner presented for our consideration.
Multiple Tax Declarations refer to one and the same property.
The alleged delinquency of petitioner in its real property taxes and the basis for the auction sale stemmed from the supposed non-payment of real property taxes due on Lot 13-B-1, with an assessed value of P4,866,350.00 covered by another tax declaration,38 D12-109-00013-C under Property Index No. 113-12-109-01-014.
Shortly before private respondent took over the property of petitioner in 2012, the Office of the City Assessor, through respondent Pulmano, issued yet another tax declaration, no. 12-109-00153-12-C under Property Index No. 113-12-109-01-013, this time covering only Lot No. 1-A, with an assessed value of P3,831,520.00. This new issuance cancelled petitioner’s original Tax Declaration No. D12-109-00012-C under Property Index No. 113-12-109-01-013, which previously covered both Lots Nos. 1-A and 13-B-1.
As petitioner duly points out,39 a simple mathematical application would show that if the assessed values in the 2nd and 3rd tax declarations were added, P4,866,350.00 and P3,831,520.00, the same would amount to P8,697,870.00, the assessed value of the property as indicated in the original tax declaration.
Therefore, if all the tax declarations issued by respondent Pulmano refer to one and the same property of petitioner, and the latter fully paid all its realty taxes due on the same, then it would follow that the finding of delinquency did not have any basis.
We note that respondent Pulmano, much like respondents Garma and Yam, has been inexplicably silent as regards the foregoing.
Private respondent took possession of both Lots Nos. 1-A and 13-B-1.
Notwithstanding the foregoing serious anomalies attending the delinquency sale, petitioner, again, confronts respondents, particularly public respondents Judge Oscar P. Barrientos, Dizon and Baloloy, as well as private respondent, with the charge that the latter, with the assistance of respondent Baloloy, forcibly ejected petitioner from the whole property, even if it was only Lot 13-B-1 that was the subject of the writ of possession.
Again, none of the respondents contested this claim.
It certainly is unallowable that petitioner be deprived of his property, or a portion thereof, without any lawful court order or process. We take into consideration the previous actions of private respondent, which as again pointed out by petitioner, appear to indicate that it was the intention of private respondent all along to gain possession over both lots covered by TCT No. 33341.
We are called upon to read the foregoing act of deprivation in totality with the other actions of respondents, which none of them deny, despite being given ample opportunity to do so. It would have been a simple matter for respondents to refute the allegations of petitioner and aver that the evidence presented by petitioner to prove full payment of real property taxes do not refer to the same property subject of the auction sale; or that the tax declarations refer to different properties owned by petitioner, and not those subject of this case; or that respondent Baloloy neither implemented the writ of possession over, nor did private respondent take possession of Lot No. 1-A. Instead, respondents Garma and Yam, in their Comment,40 make no factual declarations and curiously limit their allegations to a purely procedural standpoint – that petitioner should have pursued an action for reconveyance of the property, a point we have already resolved. Respondent Pulmano, for his part, alleged in his Manifestation41 that he chose not to file any comment to the Petition, despite our express directive in Our Resolution dated 24 July 2013 requiring all the respondents to comment in the petition. Respondent Pulmano went so far as to impose his own condition on us, that he shall file his Comment in the event that we give due course to the petition.
When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
As mentioned above, the Notice of Levy and Warrant of Levy, were sent to an inexistent office of petitioner at Tondo, Manila and were, thus, returned unserved. Further, the Order dated 13 June 2011, setting the initial hearing on the petition, was neither posted nor properly served upon petitioner. Clearly, petitioner was deprived of its property without due process of law. Inasmuch as it had sufficiently shown that it fully paid its real estate taxes up to 2011, there was no basis to collect any tax liability, and no obligation arose on the part of petitioner to pay the amount of real property taxes sought to be collected. Consequently, petitioner should not have been declared delinquent in the payment of the said taxes to Caloocan City, and the latter did not acquire any right to sell Lot 13-B-1 in a public auction. Besides, it appears that private respondent acted hastily in filing LRC-Case No. C-5748 by failing to ascertain the actual principal office of petitioner to enable the RTC Caloocan to properly acquire jurisdiction over the person of petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 27 February 2013 and 30 May 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 128187 are SET ASIDE. Necessarily, the Orders dated 31 August 2011, 26 April 2012 and 19 November 2012, and the Writ of Possession dated 27 April 2012 in LRC Case No. C-5748, are all vacated.
6 Id. at 237-243.In re: Petition for Confirmation of Final Deed of Conveyance and Entry of New Certificate of Title under the name of Laverne Realty & Development Corporation.
22 Id. at 309-313; Motion to Stay Execution and Hold in Abeyance Further Proceedings.
27 347 Phil. 752, 763 (1997).
29Gochan v. Mancao, G.R. No. 182314, 13 November 2013.
30Yau v. The Manila Banking Corporation, 433 Phil. 701, 711 (2002) citing Parco v. CA, G.R. No. L-33152, 30 January 1982, 111 SCRA 262, 277-278.
31Diona v. Balanque, G.R. No. 173559, 7 January 2013, 688 SCRA 22, 34.
32 G.R. No. 184023, 4 March 2013, 692 SCRA 333, 336-337.
38 Id. at 408; Annex “B” of Comment of private respondent.
43E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. v. Shen Dar Electricity and machinery Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 184850, 20 October 2010, 634 SCRA 363, 375.
44Sevilla v. Cardenas, 529 Phil. 419, 433 citing Mabsucang v. Judge Balgos, 446 Phil. 217, 224 (2003).
45Sps. Sarmiento v. CA, 507 Phil. 101, 121 (2005) citing Serfino v. Court of Appeals, No. L-40858, No. L-40751, 15 September 1987, 154 SCRA 19, 27.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.