G.R. No. 240671, December 06, 2021
EASTERN HEIGHTS INVESTMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. TAGUMPAY REALTY CORPORATION AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL (ANTIPOLO CITY), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondent Tagumpay Realty Corporation purchased a 330-square meter property registered under petitioner Eastern Heights Investments and Development Corporation’s TCT No. 285425 at a tax delinquency sale. After the redemption period lapsed and a deed of conveyance was issued, petitioner refused to surrender its owner’s duplicate certificate of title. Respondent filed a petition before the RTC for surrender/cancellation of the title and issuance of a new one. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing it was improperly impleaded as “Eastern Heights Investments” and that the tax sale was void for lack of required notices under the Local Government Code. The RTC allowed respondent to amend the petition to correct petitioner’s name. Petitioner opposed, contending the amendment would confer jurisdiction where none existed, and that as a land registration court, the RTC had no jurisdiction to hear a case questioning the validity of the tax sale. The RTC granted the petition. The CA affirmed, ruling the amendment was proper, petitioner voluntarily submitted to the RTC’s jurisdiction, and petitioner could not challenge the tax sale’s validity without first complying with the deposit requirement under Section 267 of the Local Government Code.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in ruling that the amendment of the petition to correct petitioner’s name was proper.
2. Whether the CA erred in ruling that the RTC had jurisdiction over the case and over the person of the petitioner.
3. Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner cannot challenge the validity of the tax sale without complying with Section 267 of R.A. 7160.

RULING

The petition is devoid of merit.
1. The CA correctly affirmed the amendment. The correction from “Eastern Heights Investments” to “Eastern Heights Investments and Development Corporation” was a formal amendment to rectify a clerical/typographical error, evident from the attachments to the petition (TCT, tax declaration, etc.) all bearing petitioner’s correct name. Furthermore, under Rule 10, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, respondent could amend its petition once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading was served; petitioner’s motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.
2. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over petitioner’s person. Despite the lack of valid service of summons, a court acquires jurisdiction through voluntary appearance. Petitioner filed a “Voluntary Special Appearance and Urgent Motion to Dismiss” which, aside from lack of jurisdiction, sought the nullification of the tax sale. By seeking affirmative relief other than dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, petitioner voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.
3. The CA correctly ruled that petitioner cannot assail the validity of the tax sale without complying with Section 267 of R.A. 7160. This provision requires the delinquent taxpayer to deposit the amount for which the property was sold, plus interest, before instituting a court action contesting the validity of the sale. Petitioner never alleged, much less proved, compliance with this mandatory deposit requirement. Therefore, the RTC could not entertain the collateral attack on the tax sale’s validity.