GR 207443; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 207443 , July 23, 2014
GENATO INVESTMENTS, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE OSCAR P. BARRIETOS, 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.
FACTS
Petitioner Genato Investments, Inc. is the registered owner under TCT No. 33341 of two adjacent parcels of land (Lots 1-A and 13-B-1) in Caloocan City. On October 14, 2009, the Office of the City Treasurer of Caloocan sold Lot 13-B-1 at public auction due to alleged real property tax deficiencies for 19932008, with private respondent Laverne Realty & Development Corporation as the highest bidder. The City Treasurer issued a Certificate of Sale (October 15, 2009) and a Final Deed of Conveyance (January 21, 2011) to Laverne. Petitioner was unaware of these proceedings because the Notice of Levy and Warrant of Levy were sent to an inexistent office address and returned unserved. On May 4, 2011, Laverne filed LRC Case No. C-5748 with the RTC Caloocan, praying for consolidation of ownership, cancellation of TCT No. 33341, and issuance of a new title in its name, despite the auction covering only Lot 13-B-1. The RTC’s Order setting the hearing was not posted at the subject premises, and copies were not received by petitioner due to service at the same inexistent address. On August 31, 2011, the RTC granted Laverne’s petition, and the order became final and executory. On April 26, 2012, the RTC issued an order directing the issuance of a Writ of Possession, which was implemented on May 15, 2012, dispossessing petitioner of the entire property (both lots). Petitioner claimed it had religiously paid real property taxes, supported by a Certification from the City Treasurer’s Office dated September 19, 2011. Petitioner filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on February 27, 2013, on the ground that it was not the proper remedy, suggesting an action for reconveyance instead. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment, and whether the grounds for annulmentextrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and want of due processare present.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court held that a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 was the only available remedy. The Order of the RTC dated August 31, 2011, had become final and executory, and petitioner learned of the proceedings more than six months after, making a Petition for Relief under Rule 38 unavailing. The CA erred in relying on Estate of Jacob v. Court of Appeals, as an action for reconveyance would require a co-equal court to modify a final judgment, which is not permitted. The previous filing and withdrawal of a Petition for Certiorari did not bar the annulment petition, as it was timely withdrawn.
On substantive grounds, the Court found that extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and want of due process were present. The auction sale and subsequent RTC proceedings were void due to lack of proper notice to petitioner. The Notice of Levy and Warrant of Levy were sent to an inexistent address, and the RTC’s Order was not posted at the subject premises nor served on petitioner. Petitioner was deprived of its right to be heard. The City Treasurer’s Certification confirmed petitioner’s payment of real property taxes, casting doubt on the validity of the tax delinquency. The RTC also acted without jurisdiction by ordering the cancellation of the entire TCT covering both lots when the auction involved only one lot. The Supreme Court set aside the CA Resolutions and vacated the RTC Orders and Writ of Possession.