Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82720:56537&catid=1580&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:52:33+00:00

Document:
LETICIA P. LIGON, Petitioner, v. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56 AT MAKATI CITY AND ITS PRESIDING JUDGE, JUDGE REYNALDO M. LAIGO, SHERIFF IV LUCITO V. ALEJO, ATTY. SILVERIO GARING, MR. LEONARDO J. TING, AND MR. BENITO G. TECHICO, Respondents.
(c) the Order5 dated April 25, 2007 which reiterated the directive to Atty. Garing to issue a new title in favor of Ting after the latter’s payment of capital gains, documentary and transfer taxes, as required.
On November 20, 2002, petitioner Leticia P. Ligon (Ligon) filed an amended complaint6 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101 (Quezon City RTC) for collection of sum of money and damages, rescission of contract, and nullification of title with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, docketed as Civil Case No. Q–10–48145 (Quezon City Case), against Sps. Baladjay, a certain Olivia Marasigan (Marasigan), Polished Arrow Holdings, Inc. (Polished Arrow), and its incorporators,7 namely, Spouses Julius Gonzalo and Charaine Doreece Anne Fuentebella (Sps. Fuentebella), Ma. Linda Mendoza (Mendoza), Barbara C. Clavo (Clavo), Bayani E. Arit, Jr. (Arit, Jr.), and Peter M. Kairuz (Kairuz), as well as the latter’s spouses (individual defendants).
In her complaint, Ligon alleged, inter alia, that Rosario Baladjay (Rosario) enticed her to extend a short–term loan in the amount of P3,000,000.00, payable in a month’s time and secured by an Allied Bank post–dated check for the same amount.8 Ligon likewise claimed that Rosario, as further enticement for the loan extension, represented that she and her husband Saturnino were in the process of selling their property in Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City (subject property), covered by a clean title, i.e., TCT No. 8502[9 in the name of Rosario Baladjay, married to Saturnino Baladjay, and that the proceeds of the said sale could easily pay–off the loan.10 Unfortunately, the Allied Bank check was dishonored upon presentment and, despite assurances to replace it with cash, Rosario failed to do so. Moreover, Ligon discovered that the subject property had already been transferred to Polished Arrow, alleged to be a dummy corporation of Sps. Baladjay and the individual defendants (defendants). As a result, TCT No. 8502 was cancelled and replaced on October 11, 2002 by TCT No. 9273[11 in the name of Polished Arrow. Thus, Ligon prayed that all defendants be held solidarily liable to pay her the amount of P3,000,000.00, with interest due, as well as P1,000,000.00 as attorney’s fees and another P1,000,000.00 by way of moral and exemplary damages. Asserting that the transfer of the subject property to Polished Arrow was made in fraud of Sps. Baladjay’s creditors, Ligon also prayed that the said transfer be nullified, and that a writ of preliminary attachment be issued in the interim against defendants’ assets, including the subject property. Subsequently, an Amended Writ of Preliminary Attachment12 was issued on November 26, 2002, and annotated on the dorsal portion13 of TCT No. 9273 on December 3, 2002 (December 3, 2002 attachment annotation).
On February 18, 2003, a similar complaint for collection of sum of money, damages, and cancellation of title with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment was lodged before the Makati City RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 03–186 (Makati City Case), by Spouses Cecilia and Gil Vicente (Sps. Vicente) against Sps. Baladjay, Polished Arrow, and other corporations.14 In that case, it was established that Sps. Baladjay solicited millions of pesos in investments from Sps. Vicente using conduit companies that were controlled by Rosario, as President and Chairperson. During the proceedings therein, a writ of preliminary attachment also against the subject property was issued and annotated on the dorsal portion of TCT No. 9273 on March 12, 2003. Thereafter, but before the Quezon City Case was concluded, the Makati City RTC rendered a Decision15 dated December 9, 2004 (December 9, 2004 Decision), rescinding the transfer of the subject property from Sps. Baladjay to Polished Arrow upon a finding that the same was made in fraud of creditors.16 Consequently, the Makati City RTC directed the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City to: (a) cancel TCT No. 9273 in the name of Polished Arrow; and (b) restore TCT No. 8502 “in its previous condition” in the name of Rosario Baladjay, married to Saturnino Baladjay.
Meanwhile, in the pending Quezon City Case, Polished Arrow and the individual defendants (with the exception of Marasigan) were successively dropped17 as party–defendants, after it was established that they, by themselves directly or through other persons, had no more ownership, interest, title, or claim over the subject property. The parties stipulated on the existence of the December 9, 2004 Decision of the Makati City RTC, and the fact that the same was no longer questioned by defendants Sps. Fuentebella, Arit, Jr., and Polished Arrow were made conditions for their dropping as party–defendants in the case.18 In view of the foregoing, the Quezon City Case proceeded only against Sps. Baladjay and Marasigan and, after due proceedings, the Quezon City RTC rendered a Decision19 dated March 26, 2008 (March 26, 2008 Decision), directing Sps. Baladjay to pay Ligon the amount of P3,000,000.00 with interest, as well as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
On September 25, 2008, the March 26, 2008 Decision of the Quezon City RTC became final and executory.20 However, when Ligon sought its execution, she discovered that the December 3, 2002 attachment annotation had been deleted from TCT No. 9273 when the subject property was sold by way of public auction on September 9, 2005 to the highest bidder, respondent Ting, for the amount of P9,000,000.00 during the execution proceedings in the Makati City Case, as evidenced by the Officer’s Final Deed of Sale21 dated October 27, 2006 (Officer’s Final Deed of Sale) issued by Sheriff Alejo. In this regard, Ligon learned that the Makati City RTC had issued its first assailed Order22dated February 9, 2007 (First Assailed Order), directing Atty. Garing, as the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City, to: (a) register the Officer’s Final Deed of Sale on the official Record Book of the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City; and (b) cancel TCT No. 8502 in the name of Sps. Baladjay and issue a new title in the name of Ting, free from any liens and encumbrances.
Separately, Ting filed a motion before the Makati City RTC on account of Atty. Garing’s letter28 dated March 26, 2006 requiring him to comply with certain documentary requirements and to pay the appropriate capital gains, documentary stamp and transfer taxes before a new title could be issued in his name. In its third assailed Order29 dated April 25, 2007 (Third Assailed Order), the Makati City RTC directed Ting to pay the aforesaid taxes and ordered Atty. Garing to immediately cancel TCT No. 8502 and issue a new title in the former’s name.
On June 7, 2007, Atty. Garing issued TCT No. 19756[30 in the name of Ting, free from any liens and encumbrances. Later, Ting sold31 the subject property to respondent Benito G. Techico (Techico), resulting in the cancellation of TCT No. 19756 and the issuance of TCT No. 31001[32 in Techico’s name.
In view of the preceding circumstances, Ligon filed, inter alia, a certiorari petition33 against respondent Presiding Judge Reynaldo Laigo (Judge Laigo), Sheriff Alejo, Atty. Garing, Ting, and Techico (respondents), alleging, among others, that the Makati City RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders. In this relation, she prayed that the said orders be declared null and void for having been issued in violation of her right to due process, and resulting in (a) the deletion of the December 3, 2002 attachment annotation on TCT No. 9273 which evidences her prior attachment lien over the subject property, and (b) the issuance of new titles in the names of Ting and Techico.
Consolidated with Ligon’s certiorari petition is a complaint for indirect contempt34 against respondents, whereby it was alleged that the latter unlawfully interfered with the court processes of the Quezon City RTC, particularly by deleting the December 3, 2002 attachment annotation on TCT No. 9273 which thereby prevented the execution of the Quezon City RTC’s March 26, 2008 Decision.
In a Decision35 dated October 30, 2009, the CA dismissed Ligon’s certiorari petition, finding that the Makati City RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders, adding further that the same was tantamount to a collateral attack against the titles of both Ting and Techico, which is prohibited under Section 4836 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529.37 Likewise, it dismissed the indirect contempt charge for lack of sufficient basis, emphasizing that the Assailed Orders were issued prior to the Quezon City RTC’s Decision, meaning that the said issuances could not have been issued in disregard of the latter decision.
Aggrieved, Ligon filed the present petition.
The Court resolves the following essential issues: (a) whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the Makati City RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders; and (b) whether or not Judge Laigo should be cited in contempt and penalized administratively.
A. Issuance of the Assailed Orders vis–à–vis Grave Abuse of Discretion.
Applying these principles to this case, the Court finds that the CA erred in holding that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders as these issuances essentially disregarded, inter alia, Ligon’s prior attachment lien over the subject property patently anathema to the nature of attachment proceedings which is well–established in law and jurisprudence.44 In this case, Ligon, in order to secure the satisfaction of a favorable judgment in the Quezon City Case, applied for and was eventually able to secure a writ of preliminary attachment45 over the subject property on November 25, 2002, which was later annotated on the dorsal portion46 of TCT No. 9273 in the name of Polished Arrow on December 3, 2002. Notwithstanding the subsequent cancellation of TCT No. 9273 due to the Makati City RTC’s December 9, 2004 Decision rescinding the transfer of the subject property from Sps. Baladjay to Polished Arrow upon a finding that the same was made in fraud of creditors, Ligon’s attachment lien over the subject property continued to subsist since the attachment she had earlier secured binds the property itself, and, hence, continues until the judgment debt of Sps. Baladjay to Ligon as adjudged in the Quezon City Case is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law. The grave abuse of discretion of the Makati City RTC lies with its directive to issue a new certificate of title in the name of Ting (i.e., TCT No. 19756),47 free from any liens and encumbrances. This course of action clearly negates the efficacy of Ligon’s attachment lien and, also, defies the legal characterization of attachment proceedings. It bears noting that Ligon’s claim, secured by the aforesaid attachment, is against Sps. Baladjay whose ownership over the subject property had been effectively restored in view of the RTC’s rescission of the property’s previous sale to Polished Arrow.48 Thus, Sps. Ligon’s attachment lien against Sps. Baladjay as well as their successors–in–interest should have been preserved, and the annotation thereof carried over to any subsequent certificate of title,49 the most recent of which as it appears on record is TCT No. 31001 in the name of Techico, without prejudice to the latter’s right to protect his own ownership interest over the subject property.
That said, the Court now proceeds to resolve the second and final issue on indirect contempt.
While the Court agrees with Ligon’s position on the issue of grave abuse of discretion, it holds an opposite view anent its complaint for indirect contempt against Judge Laigo and/or the respondents in this case.
Examining the petition, the Court finds that Ligon failed to sufficiently show how the acts of each of the respondents, or more specifically, Judge Laigo, constituted any of the acts punishable under the foregoing section tending towards a wilful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In issuing the Assailed Orders, Judge Laigo merely performed his judicial functions pursuant to the December 9, 2004 Decision in the Makati City Case which had already attained finality. Thus, without Ligon’s proper substantiation, considering too that Judge Laigo’s official acts are accorded with the presumption of regularity,52 the Court is constrained to dismiss the indirect contempt charges in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated October 30, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. SP No. 106175 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Assailed Orders subject of this case are hereby declared NULL and VOID only insofar as they relate to the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19756 in the name of respondent Leonardo J. Ting free from any liens and encumbrances. The Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City is DIRECTED to carry over and annotate on TCT No. 31001 in the name of respondent Benito G. Techico the original attachment lien of petitioner Leticia P. Ligon as described in this Decision. The indirect contempt charges are, however, DISMISSED.
Carpio, J., Acting C.J.,* (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez, and Leonen,** JJ., concur.
2 Id. at 554–570. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales–Sison, concurring.
3 Id. at 294–295. Penned by Judge Reynaldo M. Laigo.
8 CA rollo, pp. 77–78.
10 CA rollo, p. 79.
14 See Partial Decision dated April 23, 2004; id. at 545–550.
15 Id. at 187–190. Penned by Judge Nemesio S. Felix.
17 See Order dated April 11, 2007 dismissing the complaint against defendant Ma. Linda Mendoza and her spouse Alfredo Mendoza (Id. at 261–262); Order dated June 22, 2007 dismissing the case with respect to Peter Kairuz and spouse as well as Barbara Clavo and spouse (Records, Volume 3, p. 1129); see also Order dated June 29, 2007 dropping defendants Polished Arrow Holdings Inc., Sps. Julius Gonzalo and Charaine Doreece Anne Fuentebella and Bayani Arit, Jr. from the amended complaint see (Id. at 282–283).
18 See Order dated June 29, 2007; rollo, pp. 282–283.
19 Id. at 286–289. Penned by Judge Evangeline C. Castillo–Marigomen.
22 Id. at 294–295. Penned by Judge Reynaldo M. Laigo.
23 Manifestation dated February 28, 2007; id. at 297–298.
28 CA rollo, p. 169.
33 CA rollo, pp. 2–50.
36 Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
38 Sps. Olib v. Judge Pastoral, G.R. No. 81120, August 20, 1990, 188 SCRA692, 696–697.
39Valdevieso v. Damalerio, 492 Phil. 51, 58 (2005).
Section 69. Attachments. An attachment, or a copy of any writ, order or process issued by a court of record, intended to create or preserve any lien, status, right, or attachment upon registered land, shall be filed and registered in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city in which the land lies, and, in addition to the particulars required in such papers for registration, shall contain a reference to the number of the certificate of title to be affected and the registered owner or owners thereof, and also if the attachment, order, process or lien is not claimed on all the land in any certificate of title a description sufficiently accurate for identification of the land or interest intended to be affected. A restraining order, injunction or mandamus issued by the court shall be entered and registered on the certificate of title affected, free of charge.
41Philippine Veterans Bank v. Monillas, G.R. No. 167098, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 251, 257.
42 See Joaquin v. Avellano, 6 Phil. 551 (1906).
45 See Joaquin v. Avellano, supra note 42, at 552–553.
Section 59. Carry over of encumbrances. If, at the time of any transfer, subsisting encumbrances or annotations appear in the registration book, they shall be carried over and stated in the new certificate or certificates; except so far as they may be simultaneously released or discharged.
50Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155849, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 331, 342–343.
51Baculi v. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ–09–2176, April 20, 2009, 586 SCRA 69, 77, citing Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, RTC, Br. 121, Caloocan City in Crim. Cases Q–97–69655 to 56 for Child Abuse, 567 Phil. 189, 203–204 (2008).
52 See Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.

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